Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities, 13454-13493 [2011-5035]
Download as PDF
13454
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098;
71490–1351–0000–L5–FY11]
RIN 1018–AX32
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take
During Specified Activities
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) proposes regulations that
would authorize the nonlethal,
incidental, unintentional take of small
numbers of polar bears and Pacific
walruses during year-round oil and gas
industry (Industry) exploration,
development, and production
operations in the Beaufort Sea and
adjacent northern coast of Alaska.
Industry operations for the covered
period are similar to, and include all
activities covered by the previous 5-year
Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations
that were effective from August 2, 2006,
through August 2, 2011. We propose a
finding that the total expected takings of
polar bears and Pacific walruses during
oil and gas industry exploration,
development, and production activities
will have a negligible impact on these
species and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of these species for
subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We
base this finding on the results of 17
years of data on the encounters and
interactions between polar bears, Pacific
walruses, and Industry; recent studies of
potential effects of Industry on these
species; oil spill risk assessments;
potential and documented Industry
impacts on these species; and current
information regarding the natural
history and status of polar bears and
Pacific walruses. We are proposing that
this rule be effective for 5 years from
date of issuance.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received by April 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposed rule by any of the
following methods:
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098; Division of
Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA
22203; Attention: Beaufort Sea
Incidental Take Regulations; or
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments Solicited section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Perham, Office of Marine
Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907–
786–3810 or 1–800–362–5148, or
Internet: craig_perham@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary
of the Interior (Secretary) through the
Director of the Service (we) the
authority to allow the incidental, but
not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals, in response to
requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in
50 CFR 18.27(c)] engaged in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
in a specified geographic region.
According to the MMPA, we shall allow
this incidental taking if (1) we make a
finding that the total of such taking for
the 5-year regulatory period will have
no more than a negligible impact on
these species and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of these species for taking
for subsistence use by Alaska Natives,
and (2) we issue regulations that set
forth (a) permissible methods of taking,
(b) means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the
species and their habitat and on the
availability of the species for
subsistence uses, and (c) requirements
for monitoring and reporting. If
regulations allowing such incidental
taking are issued, we issue Letters of
Authorization (LOA) to conduct
activities under the provisions of these
regulations when requested by citizens
of the United States.
The term ‘‘take,’’ as defined by the
MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture,
or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Harassment, as defined by the MMPA,
means ‘‘any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild’’ (the MMPA
calls this Level A harassment); ‘‘or (ii)
has the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering’’ (the MMPA calls
this Level B harassment).
The terms ‘‘small numbers,’’
‘‘negligible impact,’’ and ‘‘unmitigable
adverse impact’’ are defined in 50 CFR
18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small
takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities) as follows. ‘‘Small
numbers’’ is defined as ‘‘a portion of a
marine mammal species or stock whose
taking would have a negligible impact
on that species or stock.’’ It is necessary
to note that the Service’s analysis of
‘‘small numbers’’ complies with the
agency’s regulatory definition and is an
appropriate reflection of Congress’
intent. As was noted during the
development of this definition (48 FR
31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself
recognized the ‘‘imprecision of the term
small numbers,’’ but was unable to offer
a more precise formulation because the
concept is not capable of being
expressed in absolute numerical limits.’’
See H.R. Report No. 97–228 at 19. Thus,
Congress itself focused on the
anticipated effects of the activity on the
species and stated that authorization
should be available to persons ‘‘whose
taking of marine mammals is infrequent,
unavoidable, or accidental.’’
‘‘Negligible impact’’ is ‘‘an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
‘‘Unmitigable adverse impact’’ means
‘‘an impact resulting from the specified
activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the
availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid
hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing
subsistence users, or (iii) placing
physical barriers between the marine
mammals and the subsistence hunters;
and (2) that cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase
the availability of marine mammals to
allow subsistence needs to be met.’’
Industry conducts activities such as
oil and gas exploration, development,
and production in marine mammal
habitat that may result in the taking of
marine mammals. Although Industry is
under no legal requirement to obtain
incidental take authorization, since
1993, Industry has requested, and we
have issued, a series of regulations for
incidental take authorization for
conducting activities in areas of polar
bear and walrus habitat. Since the
inception of these incidental take
regulations (ITRs), polar bear/walrus
monitoring observations associated with
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the regulations have recorded over 2,000
polar bear observations associated with
Industry activities. The large majority of
reported encounters have been passive
observations of bears moving through
the oil fields. Monitoring of Industry
activities indicates that encounters with
walruses are insignificant with only 18
walruses recorded during the same
period.
A detailed history of our past
regulations can be found in our most
recent regulation, published on August
2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). In summary,
these past regulations were published
on: November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402);
August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January
28, 1999 (64 FR 4328); February 3, 2000
(65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR
16828); November 28, 2003 (68 FR
66744); and August 2, 2006 (71 FR
43926).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Current Request
In 2009, the Service received a
petition to promulgate a renewal of
regulations for nonlethal incidental take
of small numbers of walruses and polar
bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of
5 years (2011–2016). The request was
submitted on April 22, 2009, by the
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
on behalf of its members and other
participating parties. The petition is
available at: (https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/itr.htm).
AOGA’s application indicates that
they request regulations that will be
applicable to any company conducting
oil and gas exploration, development,
and production activities as described
within the request. This includes
members of AOGA and other parties
planning to conduct oil and gas
operations in the geographic region.
Members of AOGA represented in the
petition include:
• Alyeska Pipeline Service Company;
• Anadarko Petroleum Corporation;
• BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.;
• Chevron USA, Inc.;
• Eni Petroleum;
• ExxonMobil Production Company;
• Flint Hills Resources, Inc.;
• Marathon Oil Company;
• Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.;
• Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc.;
• Petro Star Inc.;
• Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska,
Inc.;
• Shell Exploration & Production
Company;
• Statoil Hydro;
• Tesoro Alaska Company; and
• XTO Energy, Inc.
Other participating parties include
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI),
CGG Veritas, Brooks Range Petroleum
Corporation (BRPC), and Arctic Slope
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Regional Corporation (ASRC) Energy
Services. The activities and geographic
region specified in AOGA’s request, and
considered in these regulations, are
described in the ensuing sections titled
‘‘Description of Geographic Region’’ and
‘‘Description of Activities.’’
Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR
part 18, subpart J in response to this
request, we must evaluate the level of
industrial activities, their associated
potential impacts to polar bears and
Pacific walruses, and their effects on the
availability of these species for
subsistence use. The information
provided by the petitioners indicates
that projected oil and gas activities over
this time frame will encompass onshore
and offshore exploration, development,
and production activities. The
petitioners have also specifically
requested that these regulations be
issued for nonlethal take. Industry has
indicated that, through implementation
of the mitigation measures, it is
confident a lethal take will not occur.
The Service is tasked with analyzing the
impact that lawful oil and gas industry
activities will have on polar bears and
walruses during normal operating
procedures. In addition, the potential
for impact by the oil and gas industry
outside normal operating conditions
warrant an analysis of the risk of an oil
spill and its potential impact on polar
bears and walruses.
Description of Proposed Regulations
The regulations that we propose to
issue include: Permissible methods of
nonlethal taking; measures to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on the
species and the availability of these
species for subsistence uses; and
requirements for monitoring and
reporting. If promulgated, these
regulations will not authorize, or
‘‘permit,’’ the actual activities associated
with oil and gas exploration,
development, and production. Rather,
they will authorize the nonlethal
incidental, unintentional take of small
numbers of polar bears and Pacific
walruses associated with those activities
based on standards set forth in the
MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and
Enforcement (BOEMRE), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) are
responsible for permitting activities
associated with oil and gas activities in
Federal waters and on Federal lands.
The State of Alaska is responsible for
permitting activities on State lands and
in State waters.
If we finalize these nonlethal
incidental take regulations, persons
seeking taking authorization for
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13455
particular projects will apply for an
LOA to cover nonlethal take associated
with exploration, development, or
production activities pursuant to the
regulations. Each group or individual
conducting an oil and gas industryrelated activity within the area covered
by these regulations may request an
LOA. A separate LOA is mandatory for
each activity. We must receive
applications for LOAs at least 90 days
before the activity is to begin.
Applicants must submit a plan to
monitor the effects of authorized
activities on polar bears and walruses.
Applicants must include in their LOA
request the time frame of proposed
activities, the operating terms and
conditions, a polar bear encounter and
interaction plan, and a marine mammal
monitoring plan.
Applicants must also include a Plan
of Cooperation (POC) describing the
availability of these species for
subsistence use by Alaska Native
communities and how they may be
affected by Industry operations. The
purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil
and gas activities will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or the stock
for subsistence uses. The POC must
provide the procedures on how Industry
will work with the affected Native
communities, including a description of
the necessary actions that will be taken
to: (1) Avoid or minimize interference
with subsistence hunting of polar bears
and Pacific walruses; and (2) ensure
continued availability of the species for
subsistence use. The POC is further
described in ‘‘Effects of Oil and Gas
Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses
of Marine Mammals.’’
If regulations are implemented, we
will evaluate each request for an LOA
based on the specific activity and
specific location, and may condition the
LOA depending on specific
circumstances for that activity and
location. For example, an LOA issued in
response to a request to conduct
activities in areas with known, active
bear dens or a history of polar bear
denning, may be conditioned to require
one or more of the following: Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery flights
to determine the location of active polar
bear dens; avoiding all denning activity
by 1 mile; intensified monitoring in a 1mile buffer around the den; or avoiding
the area during the denning period.
More information on applying for and
receiving an LOA can be found at 50
CFR 18.27(f).
Description of Geographic Region
The geographic area covered by the
requested incidental take regulations
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13456
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(hereafter referred to as the Beaufort Sea
Region) encompasses all Beaufort Sea
waters east of a north-south line through
Point Barrow (71°23′29″ N, ¥156
°28′30″ W, BGN 1944), and up to 200
miles north of Point Barrow, including
all Alaska State waters and Outer
Continental Shelf waters, and east of
that line to the Canadian border. The
onshore region is the same north/south
line at Barrow, 25 miles inland and east
to the Canning River. The Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge is not included
in these regulations. The geographical
extent of these regulations is similar as
in previous regulations (71 FR 43926),
where the offshore boundary is the
Beaufort Sea Planning area,
approximately 200 miles offshore.
Description of Activities
Activities covered in these regulations
include Industry exploration,
development, and production
operations of oil and gas reserves, as
well as environmental monitoring
associated with these activities, on the
northern coast of Alaska. Throughout
the five years that the future regulations
will be in place, the petitioners expect
similar types of oil and gas activities
will occur at similar times of the year as
under the prior regulations. Examples of
future Industry activities include the
completion of the Alpine Satellite
Development, development of Point
Thomson, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, and
areas in the National Petroleum
Reserve—Alaska (NPR–A). According to
the petitioners, the locations of these
operations are anticipated to be
approximately equally divided among
the onshore and offshore tracts
presently under lease and to be leased
during the period under consideration.
Additionally, for the purpose of
assessing possible impacts we
anticipate, based on information
provided by the petitioners, that these
activities will occur equally spaced over
time and area for the upcoming icecovered and open-water seasons. Due to
the large number of variables affecting
Industry activities, prediction of exact
dates and locations of operation for the
open-water and ice-covered seasons is
not possible at this time. However,
operators must provide specific dates
and locations of proposed activities
prior to receiving an LOA.
Industry-Proposed Activities
Considered Under Incidental Take
Regulations
Alaska’s North Slope encompasses an
area of 88,280 square miles and
currently contains 11 oil and gas field
units associated with Industry. These
include the Greater Prudhoe Bay, Duck
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Island, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk
River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Tuvaq,
Nikaitchuq, Milne Point, and Point
Thomson. These units encompass
exploration, development, and
production activities. In addition, some
of these fields include associated
satellite oilfields: Sag Delta North,
Eider, North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne,
Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora,
Midnight Sun, Borealis, West Beach,
Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm,
West Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, Schrader
Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine.
Exploration Activities
As with previous regulations,
exploration activities may occur
onshore or offshore and include:
Geological surveys; geotechnical site
investigations; reflective seismic
exploration; vibrator seismic data
collection; airgun and water gun seismic
data collection; explosive seismic data
collection; vertical seismic profiles; subsea sediment sampling; construction
and use of drilling structures such as
caisson-retained islands, ice islands,
bottom-founded structures [steel drilling
caisson (SDC)], ice pads and ice roads;
oil spill prevention, response, and
cleanup; and site restoration and
remediation. Exploration activities
could also include the development of
staging facilities. The level of
exploration activities is expected to be
similar to the level during the past
regulatory periods, although exploration
projects may shift to different locations,
particularly the NPR–A.
The location of new exploration
activities within the geographic region
of the rule will, in part, be determined
by the following State and Federal oil
and gas lease sales:
State of Alaska Lease Sales
In 1996, the State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR), Oil and Gas Division, adopted
an ‘‘area wide’’ approach to leasing.
Under area-wide leasing, the State offers
all available state acreage not currently
under lease within each area annually.
The area of activity in this Petition
includes the North Slope and Beaufort
Sea planning areas. Lease sale data are
available on the ADNR Web site at:
https://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/
index.htm. Industry activities may occur
on state lease sales during the time
period of the requested action. North
Slope Area-wide lease sales are held
annually in October. As of August 2008,
there are 774 active leases on the North
Slope, encompassing 971,245 hectares
(2.4 million acres), and 224 active leases
in the state waters of the Beaufort Sea,
encompassing 249,000 hectares (615,296
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
acres). The sale on October 22, 2008
resulted in the sale of 60 tracts for a
total of 86,765 hectares (214,400 acres).
Eight lease sales have been held to date.
As of July 2008, there are 38 active
leases in the Beaufort Sea area,
encompassing 38,333 hectares (94,724
acres). The sale on October 22, 2008
resulted in the sale of 32 tracts for a
total of 40,145 hectares (99,200 acres).
Northwest and Northeast Planning
Areas of NPR–A
The BLM manages over 9 million
hectares (23 million acres) in the NPR–
A, including the Northwest (3.5 million
hectares, 8.8 million acres), Northeast
(1.8 hectares, 4.6 million acres), and
South (3.6 million hectares, 9 million
acres) Planning Areas. The area of
activity in this Petition includes the
Northwest and Northeast areas.
Oil and gas lease sales were held in
2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The 2004
lease sale sold 123 tracts totaling
566,560 hectares (1.4 million acres); the
2006 sale sold 81 tracts covering
380,350 hectares (939,867 acres); the
2008 sale sold 23 tracts covering
106,013 hectares (261,964 acres). From
2000 to 2008, 25 exploratory wells were
drilled in the Northeast and Northwest
planning areas of the NPR–A. Current
operator/ownership information is
available on the BLM NPR–A Web site
at https://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/
energy/oil_gas/npra.html. Exploration
activities were conducted on the FEX LP
company leases in the Northwest
Planning Area between 2006–2008.
Exploration may continue where new
areas have been selected. New project
elements included exploration drilling
at nine new ice drill pad locations (in
the Uugaq, Aklaq, Aklaqyaaq, and
Amaguq prospects), 99 km (62 mi) of
new access corridor, and 34 new water
sources.
In the Northeast Planning Area, CPAI
applied for permits to begin a five-year
(2006–2011) winter drilling program at
11 sites (Noatak, Nugget, Cassin and
Spark DD prospects), including 177 km
(110 mi) of new right-of-way corridors
and 10 new water supply lakes. CPAI is
planning to continue developing its
program in the Northeast Planning Area
throughout the duration of the requested
regulations.
Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales
The BOEMRE manages the Alaska
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region
encompassing 242 million hectares (600
million acres). In February, 2003,
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
(now known as the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement or BOEMRE) issued the
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for three lease sales planned for
the Beaufort Sea Planning Area: Sale
186, 195, and 202. Sale 186 was held in
2003, resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts
encompassing 73,576 hectares (181,810
acres). Sale 195 was held in 2005,
resulting in the leasing of 117 tracts
encompassing 245,760 hectares (607,285
acres). Sale 202 was held in 2007,
resulting in the leasing of 90 tracts
covering 198,580 hectares (490,700
acres). Leasing information from
BOEMRE is located at https://
www.boemre.gov/alaska/lease/
lease.htm. The next lease sale, Lease
Sale 217, is planned for 2011. BOEMRE
has begun preparing the multiple-sale
EIS for these areas. The Draft EIS was
released in November 2008 and is
located at https://www.BOEMRE.gov/
alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/
ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm. While
the disposition of the leases is highly
speculative at this time, it is probable
that at least some seismic exploration
and possibly some exploratory drilling
will take place during the 5-year period
of the regulations.
Exploratory drilling for oil occurs
onshore, in inland areas, or in the
offshore environment. Exploratory
drilling and associated support
activities and features may include:
Transportation to site; setup and
relocation of up to 100-person camps
and support camps (lights, generators,
snow removal, water plants, wastewater
plants, dining halls, sleeping quarters,
mechanical shops, fuel storage, landing
strips, aircraft support, health and safety
facilities, data recording facilities and
communication equipment); building
gravel pads; building gravel islands with
sandbag and concrete block protection;
ice islands; ice roads; gravel hauling;
gravel mine sites; road building;
pipelines; electrical lines; water lines;
road maintenance; buildings and
facilities; operating heavy equipment;
digging trenches; burying and covering
pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security
operations; dredging; moving floating
drill units; helicopter support; and drill
ships such as the Steel Drilling Caisson
(SDC), CANMAR Explorer III, and the
Kulluk.
During the regulatory period,
exploration activities are anticipated to
occur in the offshore environment and
continue in the current oil field units,
including those projects identified by
Industry below.
Point Thomson
The Point Thomson reservoir is
approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of the
Badami field. In January 2009, ADNR
issued a conditional interim decision
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
that allows for the drilling of two wells
by 2010 and commencing production by
2014. Following startup of production
from Point Thomson in 2014, field
development is expected to include
additional liquids production and sale
of gas. Field development will require
additional wells, field facilities, and
pipelines. The timing and nature of
additional facilities and expansions will
depend upon initial field performance
and timing of an Alaska gas pipeline to
export gas off the North Slope.
Ataruq (Two Bits)
The Ataruq project is permitted for
construction but, not completely
permitted for operation. This KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Corporation project
is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi)
northwest of the Kuparuk River Unit
(KRU) Drill Site 2M. The area consists
of two onshore prospects and covers
about 2,071 hectares (5,120 acres). It
includes a 6.4-km (4-mi) gravel road and
a single gravel pad with production
facilities and up to 20 wells in
secondary containment modules. The
processed fluids will be transported to
DS 2M via a pipe-in-a-pipe buried line
within the access road. After drilling,
the facility will be normally unmanned.
Shell Offshore Exploration Activities
Shell anticipates conducting an
exploration drilling program, called the
Suvulliq Project, on BOEMRE Alaska
OCS leases located in the Beaufort Sea
during the arctic drilling seasons of
2011–2016. Presently, the arctic drilling
seasons are generally considered to be
from July through October in the
Beaufort Sea. Shell will use a floating
drilling vessel complimented by ice
management and oil spill response
(OSR) barges and/or vessels to
accomplish exploration and/or
delineation drilling during each arctic
drilling season. An open water program
in support of the development of Shell’s
Beaufort Sea leases will involve a site
clearance and shallow hazards study as
well. A detailed description of an
offshore drilling activity of this nature
can be found at: https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, under ‘‘LOA
Applications for Public Viewing.’’
ION Seismic Activity
ION is planning an open water
seismic program in the late open-water
and into the ice-covered season, which
will consist of an estimated 3,000 miles
of 2D seismic line acquisition and site
clearance surveys in the eastern
Beaufort Sea. The open water seismic
program will consist of two vessels, one
active in seismic acquisition and the
second providing logistical support and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13457
ice breaking capabilities. An offshore
open water seismic program is proposed
to occur between September through
October 2011.
Development Activities
Development activities associated
with oil and gas Industry operations
include: Road construction; pipeline
construction; waterline construction;
gravel pad construction; camp
construction (personnel, dining,
lodging, maintenance, water production,
wastewater treatment); transportation
(automobile, airplane, and helicopter);
runway construction; installation of
electronic equipment; well drilling; drill
rig transport; personnel support; and
demobilization, restoration, and
remediation.
Alpine Satellites Development
CPAI has proposed to develop oil and
gas from five satellites. Two proposed
satellites known as CD–3 (CD North
during exploration) and CD–4 (CD
South) are in the Colville Delta. The
CD–3 drill site is located north of CD–
1 (Alpine facility) and is a roadless
development accessed by a gravel
airstrip or ice road in winter. The CD–
4 drill site is connected to the main
production pad via a gravel road.
Production start-up of CD–3 and CD–4
drill sites occurred in late summer 2006.
Three other proposed satellites known
as CD–5, CD–6, and CD–7 (Alpine West,
Lookout, and Spark, respectively,
during exploration) are in the NPR–A.
These remaining three drill sites are
proposed to be connected to CD–2 via
road and bridge over the Niglilq
Channel from CD–5. The other two drill
sites are planned to be connected to CD–
5 via road; however, the permitting for
these scenarios has not been completed.
Development of five drill sites is
planned by CPAI in the immediate
future in the Alpine development area
and could occur within the regulatory
period. Production of CD–5, CD–6, and
CD–7 could also occur during the
regulatory period.
Liberty
BPXA is currently in the process of
developing the Liberty field, where the
use of ultra extended-reach drilling
(uERD) technology will access an
offshore reservoir from existing onshore
facilities. The Liberty reservoir is
located in federal waters in Foggy Island
Bay about 13 km (8 mi) east of the
Endicott Satellite Drilling Island (SDI).
Liberty prospect is located
approximately 5.5 miles offshore in 20
ft of water. The development of Liberty
was first proposed in 1998 when BPXA
submitted a plan to BOEMRE (then
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13458
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was
passed into law by the State of Alaska
in May 2007. TransCanada Corporation
was selected by the State of Alaska in
August 2008 as the exclusive recipient
of the AGIA license. TransCanada
Corporation is currently in the planning
stages of developing the Alaska Pipeline
Project, which will move natural gas
from Alaska to North American markets.
The project is planned to stretch
approximately 2,760 km (1,715 mi) from
Prudhoe Bay to the British Columbia/
Alberta border near Boundary Lake.
North Shore Development
Brooks Range Petroleum Company
(BRPC) is proposing the North Shore
Development Project to produce oil
from several relatively small, isolated
hydrocarbon accumulations on the
North Slope. The fields are close to
existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure,
where production will concentrate on
the Ivishak and Sag River sands
prospects. Horizontal drilling
technology and long-reach wells will be
used to maximize production while
minimizing surface impacts. BRPC
expects to recover between five and ten
million barrels of oil, and future
exploration success could increase the
reserves.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
MMS) for a production facility on an
artificial island in Foggy Island Bay. In
2002, BPXA put the project on hold to
review project design and economics
after the completion of BPXA’s
Northstar project. In August 2005, BPXA
moved the project onshore to take
advantage of advances in extended
reach drilling. Liberty wells will extend
as much as 8 miles offshore. Drilling of
the initial Liberty development well and
first oil production is planned to occur
during the 5-year period of the proposed
action.
Nikaitchuq Unit
The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near
Spy Island, north of Oliktok Point and
the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest
of the Milne Point Unit. Former operator
Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation
drilled three exploratory wells on and
immediately adjacent to Spy Island, 4
miles north of Oliktok Point in the icecovered season of 2004–2005. The
current operator, Eni, is moving to
develop this site as a future production
area. Future drilling will be from a small
gravel island shoreward of the barrier
islands. Additional operations will
include approximately 13 miles of
underground pipeline connecting the
offshore sites to a mainland landfall and
onshore facilities pad near Oliktok
Point.
Potential Gas Pipeline
Two companies are currently
proposing to construct a natural gas
pipeline that would transport natural
gas from the North Slope to North
American markets. The two proposed
projects are discussed below, although it
is expected that only one pipeline
would be constructed. Only a small
portion (40 km [25 mi] inland) of a
pipeline would occur within the
specified area of activity covered under
this Petition. Initial stages of the gas
pipeline development, such as
environmental studies and route
selection, could occur during the 5-year
period of the requested action.
One project is proposed by the Alaska
Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali), a company
jointly owned by BP Alaska Gas
Pipelines LLC and the ConocoPhillips
Denali Company. The Denali natural gas
pipeline project is expected to include
a gas treatment plant on the North Slope
and approximately 3,220 km (2,000 mi)
of large-diameter natural gas
transmission pipeline beginning on the
North Slope and terminating in the
vicinity of the British Columbia-Alberta,
Canada border. The Alaska portion of
the project would generally follow the
Dalton Highway south from the North
Slope.
The second project is proposed by the
TransCanada Corporation. The Alaska
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Production Activities
Existing North Slope production
operations extend from the oilfield units
of Alpine in the west to Point Thomson
and Badami in the east. Badami and
Alpine are developments without
permanent access roads; access is
available to these fields by airstrips,
barges, and seasonal ice roads. Oil
pipelines extend from these fields and
connect to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS). North Slope oilfield
developments include a series of major
fields and their associated satellite
fields. In some cases a new oilfield
discovery has been developed
completely using existing infrastructure.
Thus, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield unit
encompasses the Prudhoe Bay,
Lisburne, Niakuk, West Beach, North
Prudhoe Bay, Point McIntyre, Borealis,
Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora, and
Orion reservoirs, while the Kuparuk
oilfield development incorporates the
Kuparuk, West Sak, Tarn, Palm,
Tabasco, and Meltwater oilfields.
Production activities include:
Personnel transportation (automobiles,
airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons,
cat trains, and snowmobiles); and unit
operations (building operations, oil
production, oil transport, restoration,
remediation, and improvement of oil
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
field operations). Production activities
are permanent, year-round activities,
whereas exploration and development
activities are usually temporary and
seasonal.
Only production units and facilities
operated by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.
and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. have
been covered under previous incidental
take regulations (Greater Prudhoe Bay,
Endicott, Milne Point, Badami,
Northstar, Kuparuk River, and Alpine,
respectively). Now the Oooguruk field,
operated by Pioneer, is currently
producing as well.
Prudhoe Bay Unit
The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is the largest
oilfield by production in North America
and ranks among the 20 largest oilfields
ever discovered worldwide. Over 11
billion barrels have been produced from
a field originally estimated to have 25
billion barrels of oil in place. The
Prudhoe Bay field also contains an
estimated 26 trillion cubic ft of
recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100
wells are currently in operation in the
greater Prudhoe Bay oilfields, just over
900 of which are producing oil (others
are for gas or water injection).
The total development area in the
Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately
2,785 hectares (6,883 acres). The Base
Operations Center on the western side
of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can
accommodate 476 people, the nearby
Main Construction Camp can
accommodate up to 680 people, and the
Prudhoe Bay Operations Center on the
eastern side of the field houses up to
488 people. Additional contract or
construction personnel can be housed at
facilities in nearby Deadhorse or in
temporary camps placed on existing
gravel pads.
Kuparuk River Unit
The Kuparuk oilfield is the secondlargest producing oilfield in North
America. More than 2.6 billion barrels
of oil are expected to be produced from
this oilfield. The Greater Kuparuk Area
includes the satellite oilfields of Tarn,
Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and
Meltwater. These satellite fields have
been developed using existing facilities.
To date, nearly 900 wells have been
drilled in the Greater Kuparuk Area.
The total development area in the
Greater Kuparuk Area is approximately
603 hectares (1,508 acres), including
167 km (104 mi) of gravel roads, 231 km
(144 mi) of pipelines, 6 gravel mine
sites, and over 50 gravel pads.
The Kuparuk Operations Center and
Kuparuk Construction Camp are able to
accommodate up to 1,200 people. The
Kuparuk Industrial Center is primarily
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
used for personnel overflow during the
winter in years with a large amount of
construction.
Greater Point McIntyre
The Greater Point McIntyre Area
encompasses the Point McIntyre field
and nearby satellite fields of West
Beach, North Prudhoe Bay, Niakuk, and
Western Niakuk. The Point McIntyre
area is located 11.3 km (7 mi) north of
Prudhoe Bay. It was discovered in 1988
and came online in 1993. BPXA
produces the Point McIntyre area from
two drill site gravel pads. The field’s
production peaked in 1996 at 170,000
barrels per day, whereas in 2006
production averaged 21,000 barrels per
day with just over 100 wells in
operation. Cumulative oil production as
of December 31, 2006, was 738 million
barrels of oil equivalent.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Milne Point
Located approximately 56 km (35 mi)
northwest of Prudhoe Bay, the Milne
Point oilfield was discovered in 1969
and began production in 1985. The field
consists of more than 220 wells drilled
from 12 gravel pads. Milne Point
produces from three main fields:
Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, and Sag River.
Cumulative oil production as of
December 31, 2006, was 248 million
barrels of oil equivalent. The total area
of Milne Point and its satellites is 94.4
hectares (236 acres) of tundra, including
31 km (19 mi) of gravel roads, 64 km (40
mi) of pipelines, and one gravel mine
site. The Milne Point Operations Center
has accommodations for up to 300
people. It is estimated that the Ugnu
reservoir contains roughly 20 billion
barrels of heavy oil in place. BPXA’s
reservoir scientists and engineers
conservatively estimate that roughly 10
percent of that resource, or 2 billion
barrels, could be recoverable. Currently,
cold heavy oil production with sand
(CHOPS) technology is being tested at
Milne South Pad. CHOPS is part of a
multiyear technology testing and
research program initiated at Milne
Point in 2007.
Endicott
The Endicott oilfield is located
approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast
of Prudhoe Bay. It is the first
continuously producing offshore field in
the U.S. arctic. The Endicott oilfield was
developed from two man-made gravel
islands connected to the mainland by a
gravel causeway. The operations center
and processing facilities are located on
the 18-hectare (45-acre) Main
Production Island. Approximately 80
wells have been drilled to develop the
field. Two satellite fields drilled from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Endicott’s Main Production Island
access oil from the Ivishak formation:
Eider produces about 110 barrels per
day, and Sag Delta North produces
about 117 barrels per day. The total area
of Endicott development is 156.8
hectares (392 acres) of land with 25 km
(15 mi) of roads, 47 km (29 mi) of
pipelines, and one gravel mine site.
Approximately 100 people are housed at
the Endicott Operations Center.
Badami
Production began from the Badami
oilfield in 1998, but has not been
continuous. The Badami field is located
approximately 56 km (35 mi) east of
Prudhoe Bay and is currently the most
easterly oilfield development on the
North Slope. The Badami development
area is approximately 34 hectares (85
acres) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi)
of gravel roads, 56 km (35 mi) of
pipeline, one gravel mine site, and two
gravel pads with a total of eight wells.
There is no permanent road connection
from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. The
pipeline connecting the Badami oilfield
to the common carrier pipeline system
at Endicott was built from an ice road.
The cumulative production is five
million barrels of oil equivalent. This
field is currently in ‘‘warm storage’’
status, i.e., site personnel are minimized
and the facility is maintained at a
minimal level. Additionally, it currently
is not producing oil reserves at this
time. BPXA recently entered into an
agreement with Savant LLC; under this
agreement Savant will drill an
exploration well in the winter of 2009
and potentially add an additional well
in 2010. Depending on the outcome of
these drilling programs, Badami could
resume production.
Alpine
Discovered in 1996, the Alpine
oilfield began production in November
2000. Alpine is the westernmost oilfield
on the North Slope, located 50 km (31
mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield and 14
km (9 mi) northeast of the village of
Nuiqsut. Although the Alpine reservoir
covers 50,264 hectares (124,204 acres),
it has been developed from 65.9
hectares (162.92 acres) of pads and
associated roads. Alpine features a
combined production pad/drill site and
three additional drill sites with an
estimated 172 wells. There is no
permanent road connecting Alpine with
the Kuparuk oilfield; small aircraft are
used to provide supplies and crew
changeovers. Major resupply activities
occur in the winter, using the ice road
that is constructed annually between the
two fields. The Alpine base camp can
house approximately 540 employees.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13459
Northstar
The Northstar oilfield was discovered
in 1983 and developed by BPXA in
1995. The offshore oilfield is located 6
km (4 mi) northwest of the Point
McIntyre field and 10 km (6 mi) from
Prudhoe Bay in about 39 feet of water.
The 15,360-hectare (38,400-acre)
reservoir has now been developed from
a 2-hectare (5-acre) artificial island.
Production from the Northstar reservoir
began in late 2001. The 2-hectare (5acre) island will eventually contain 19
producing wells, six gas injector wells,
and one solids injection well. A subsea
pipeline connects facilities to the
Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Access to
Northstar is via helicopter, hovercraft,
and boat.
Oooguruk Unit
The Oooguruk Unit is located
adjacent to and immediately northwest
of the Kuparuk River Unit in shallow
waters of the Beaufort Sea, near Thetis
Island. Unit production began in 2008.
Facilities include an offshore drill site
and onshore production facilities pad.
In addition, a subsea 5.7-mile flowline
transports produced fluids from the
offshore drill site to shore, where it
transitions to an aboveground flowline
supported on vertical support members
for 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to the onshore
facilities for approximately 3.3 hectares
(8.2 acres). The offshore drill site (2.4
hectares, 6 acres) is planned to support
48 wells drilled from the Nuiqsut and
Kuparuk reservoirs. The wells are
contained in well bay modules, with
capacity for an additional 12 wells, if
needed. Pioneer is additionally
proposing production facilities west of
KRU drill site 3S on State oil and gas
leases. The contemplated facilities
consist of two drill sites near the
Colville River delta mouth, a tie-in pad
adjacent to DS–3S, gravel roads, flow
lines, and power lines. Drilling of the
initial appraisal well is planned to start
in 2013, with first oil production as
early as 2015.
During the time period of the previous
ITRs (2006–2011), three development
projects were described as possibly
moving into the production phase.
Currently, only Oooguruk is producing.
The two other developments,
Nikaitchuq and the Alpine West
Development, have not begun to
produce oil to their fullest capacity.
Concurrently, there are two additional
developments that could be producing
oil during the regulatory period. They
are the Liberty and North Shore
developments.
Proposed production activities will
increase the total area of the Industrial
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13460
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
footprint by the addition of new
facilities, such as drill pads, pipelines,
and support facilities, in the geographic
region; however, oil production volume
is expected to continue to decrease
during this 5-year regulatory period,
despite new fields initiating production.
This is due to current producing fields
reducing output and new fields not
maintaining the loss of that output.
Current monitoring and mitigation
measures, described later, will be kept
in place.
Evaluation of the Nature and Level of
Proposed Activities
During the period covered by the
proposed regulations, we anticipate the
annual level of activity at existing
production facilities, as well as levels of
new annual exploration and
development activities, will be similar
to that which occurred under the
previous regulations, although
exploration and development may shift
to different locations and new
production facilities will add to the
overall Industry footprint. Additional
onshore and offshore production
facilities are being considered within
the timeframe of these regulations,
potentially adding to the total
permanent activities in the area. The
progress is similar to prior production
schedules, but there is a potential
increase in the accumulation of the
industrial footprint, with an increase
mainly in onshore facilities.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Biological Information
Pacific Walrus
The Pacific walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus divergens), is represented by a
single population of animals inhabiting
the shallow continental shelf waters of
the Bering and Chukchi seas. The
distribution of Pacific walruses varies
markedly with seasons. During the late
winter breeding season, walruses are
found in areas of the Bering Sea where
open leads, polynyas, or areas of broken
pack ice occur. Significant winter
concentrations are normally found in
the Gulf of Anadyr, the St. Lawrence
Island Polynya, and in an area south of
Nunivak Island. In the spring and early
summer, most of the population follows
the retreating pack ice northward into
the Chukchi Sea; however, several
thousand animals, primarily adult
males, remain in the Bering Sea,
utilizing coastal haulouts during the icefree season. During the summer months,
walruses are widely distributed across
the shallow continental shelf waters of
the Chukchi Sea. Significant summer
concentrations are normally found in
the unconsolidated pack ice west of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Point Barrow, and along the northern
coastline of Chukotka in the vicinity of
Wrangell Island. Small herds of
walruses occasionally range east of
point Barrow into the Beaufort Sea in
late summer. As the ice edge advances
southward in the fall, walruses reverse
their migration and re-group on the
Bering Sea pack ice.
Population Status
The size of the Pacific walrus
population has never been known with
certainty. Based on large sustained
harvests in the 18th and 19th centuries,
Fay (1957) speculated that the preexploitation population was represented
by a minimum of 200,000 animals.
Since that time, population size is
believed to have fluctuated markedly in
response to varying levels of human
exploitation. Large-scale commercial
harvests are believed to have reduced
the population to 50,000–100,000
animals in the mid-1950s (Fay et al.
1989). The population appears to have
increased rapidly in size during the
1960s and 1970s in response to harvest
regulations and reductions in hunting
pressure (Fay et al. 1989). Between 1975
and 1990, visual aerial surveys were
carried out by the United States and
Russia at 5-year intervals, producing
population estimates ranging from
201,039 to 290,000 walruses. In 2006,
U.S. and Russian researchers surveyed
walrus groups in the pack ice of the
Bering Sea using thermal imaging
systems to detect walruses hauled out
on sea ice and satellite transmitters to
account for walruses in the water. The
number of walruses within the surveyed
area was estimated at 129,000 with 95
percent confidence limits of 55,000 to
507,000 individuals. Previous aerial
survey results are highly variable and
not directly comparable among years
because of differences in survey
methods, timing of surveys, segments of
the population surveyed, and
incomplete coverage of areas where
walrus may have been present. Because
of such issues, existing abundance
estimates do not provide a basis for
determining trends in population size.
Changes in walrus population status
have also been investigated by
examining changes in biological
parameters over time. Based on
evidence of changes in abundance,
distributions, condition indices, and
life-history parameters, Fay et al. (1989)
and Fay et al. (1997) concluded that the
Pacific walrus population increased
greatly in size during the 1960s and
1970s, and postulated that the
population was approaching, or had
exceeded, the carrying capacity of its
environment by the early 1980s. Harvest
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increased in the 1980s. Changes in the
size, composition, and productivity of
the sampled walrus harvest in the
Bering Strait Region of Alaska over this
timeframe are consistent with this
hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006).
Harvest levels declined sharply in the
early 1990s, and increased reproductive
rates and earlier maturation in females
occurred, suggesting that densitydependent feedback mechanisms had
been relaxed and the population had
likely dropped below carrying capacity
(Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). However, it
is unknown whether density-dependent
changes in life-history parameters were
mediated by changes in population
abundance or changes in the carrying
capacity of the environment (GarlichMiller et al. 2006).
Habitat
Walruses rely on floating pack ice as
a substrate for resting and giving birth.
Walruses generally require ice
thicknesses of 50 cm (20 in) or more to
support their weight. Although walruses
can break through ice up to 20 cm (8 in)
thick, they usually occupy areas with
natural openings and are not found in
areas of extensive, unbroken ice (Fay
1982). Thus, their concentrations in
winter tend to be in areas of divergent
ice flow or along the margins of
persistent polynyas. Concentrations in
summer tend to be in areas of
unconsolidated pack ice, usually within
100 km (30 mi) of the leading edge of
the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). When
suitable pack ice is not available,
walruses haul out to rest on land.
Isolated sites, such as barrier islands,
points, and headlands, are most
frequently occupied. Social factors,
learned behavior, and proximity to their
prey base are also thought to influence
the location of haulout sites. Traditional
walrus haulout sites in the eastern
Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson,
Cape Lisburne, and Icy Cape. In recent
years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site
has seen regular use in late summer.
Numerous haulouts also exist along the
northern coastline of Chukotka, and on
Wrangell and Herald islands, which are
considered important haul-out areas in
September, especially in years when the
pack ice retreats far to the north.
Although capable of diving to deeper
depths, walruses are generally found in
shallow waters of 100 m (300 ft) or less,
possibly because of higher productivity
of their benthic foods in shallower
water. They feed almost exclusively on
benthic invertebrates although Native
hunters have also reported incidences of
walruses preying on seals. Prey
densities are thought to vary across the
continental shelf according to sediment
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
type and structure. Preferred feeding
areas are typically composed of
sediments of soft, fine sands. The
juxtaposition of ice over appropriate
depths for feeding is especially
important for females and their
dependent young that are not capable of
deep diving or long exposure in the
water. The mobility of the pack ice is
thought to help prevent walruses from
overexploiting their prey resource (Ray
et al. 2006). Foraging trips may last for
several days, during which time they
dive to the bottom nearly continuously.
Most foraging dives to the bottom last
between 5 and 10 minutes, with a
relatively short (1–2 minute) surface
interval. The intensive tilling of the sea
floor by foraging walruses is thought to
have significant influence on the
ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas.
Foraging activity recycles large
quantities of nutrients from the sea floor
back into the water column, provides
food for scavenger organisms, and
contributes greatly to the diversity of the
benthic community.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with
low rates of reproduction. Females
reach sexual maturity at 4–9 years of
age. Males become fertile at 5–7 years of
age; however, they are usually unable to
compete for mates until they reach full
physical maturity at 15–16 years of age.
Breeding occurs between January and
March in the pack ice of the Bering Sea.
Calves are usually born in late April or
May the following year during the
northward migration from the Bering
Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Calving areas in
the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering
Strait to latitude 70°N. (Fay et al. 1984).
Calves are capable of entering the water
shortly after birth, but tend to haulout
frequently, until their swimming ability
and blubber layer are well developed.
Newborn calves are tended closely.
They accompany their mother from
birth and are usually not weaned for 2
years or more. Cows brood newborns to
aid in their thermoregulation (Fay and
Ray 1968), and carry them on their back
or under their flipper while in the water
(Gehnrich 1984). Females with
newborns often join together to form
large ‘‘nursery herds’’ (Burns 1970).
Summer distribution of females and
young walruses is closely tied to the
movements of the pack ice relative to
feeding areas. Females give birth to one
calf every two or more years. This
reproductive rate is much lower than
other pinniped species; however, some
walruses live to age 35–40 and remain
reproductively active until relatively
late in life.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Walruses are extremely social and
gregarious animals. They tend to travel
in groups and haulout onto ice or land
in groups. Walruses spend
approximately one-third of their time
hauled out onto land or ice. Hauled-out
walruses tend to lie in close physical
contact with each other. Youngsters
often lie on top of the adults. The size
of the hauled out groups can range from
a few animals up to several thousand
individuals.
Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on
walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take
all age classes of walruses (Frost et al.
1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005).
Predation levels are thought to be
highest near terrestrial haulout sites
where large aggregations of walruses can
be found; however, few observations
exist for off-shore environs.
Pacific walruses have been hunted by
coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka
for thousands of years. Exploitation of
the Pacific walrus population by
Europeans has also occurred in varying
degrees since first contact. Presently,
walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka
is restricted to meet the subsistence
needs of aboriginal peoples. The
Service, in partnership with the Eskimo
Walrus Commission (EWC) and the
Association of Traditional Marine
Mammal Hunters of Chukotka,
administered subsistence harvest
monitoring programs in Alaska and
Chukotka in 2000–2005. Harvest
mortality over this timeframe averaged
5,458 walruses per year. This mortality
estimate includes corrections for underreported harvest and struck and lost
animals.
Intra-specific trauma is also a known
source of injury and mortality.
Disturbance events can cause walruses
to stampede into the water and have
been known to result in injuries and
mortalities. The risk of stampede-related
injuries increases with the number of
animals hauled out. Calves and young
animals at the perimeter of these herds
are particularly vulnerable to trampling
injuries.
Distributions and Abundance of Pacific
Walruses in the Beaufort Sea
The distribution of Pacific walruses is
thought to be influenced primarily by
the extent of the seasonal pack ice. In
May and June, most of the Pacific
walrus population migrates through the
Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea.
Walruses tend to migrate into the
Chukchi Sea along lead systems that
develop along the northwest coast of
Alaska. Walruses are expected to be
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13461
closely associated with the southern
edge of the seasonal pack ice during the
open water season. By July, large groups
of walruses, up to several thousand
animals, can be found along the edge of
the pack ice between Icy Cape and Point
Barrow. During August, the edge of the
pack ice generally retreats northward to
about 71°N, but in light ice years, the ice
edge can retreat beyond 76°N. The sea
ice normally reaches its minimum
(northern) extent in September. In years
when the sea ice retreats beyond the
relatively shallow continental shelf
waters of the Chukchi Sea, some
animals migrate west towards Chukotka,
while others have been observed
hauling out along the shoreline between
Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. In
recent years, coastal haulouts in
Chukotka Russia have seen regular and
persistent use in the fall. Russian
biologists attribute the increased use of
these coastal haulouts to diminishing
sea ice habitat. A similar event was
recorded along the Alaskan coastline in
August–September 2007, 2009, and
2010 when several thousand animals
were reported along the Chukchi Sea
coast between Barrow and Cape
Lisburne. The pack ice usually advances
rapidly southward in October, and most
walruses are thought to have moved into
the Bering Sea by mid to late November.
Although most walruses remain in the
Chukchi Sea throughout the summer
months, small numbers of animals
occasionally range into the Beaufort Sea
in late summer. A total of 18 walrus
sightings have been reported as a result
of Industry monitoring efforts over the
past 20 years (Kalxdorff and Bridges
2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Two
sightings occurred in 1996; one
involved a single animal observed from
a seismic vessel near Point Barrow, and
a second animal was sighted during an
aerial survey approximately 5 miles
northwest of Howe Island. In 1997,
another single animal was sighted
during an aerial survey approximately
20 miles north of Pingok Island. In 1998,
a dead walrus was observed on Pingok
Island being scavenged by polar bears.
One walrus was observed hauled out
near the SDC at McCovey in 2002. In
2004, one walrus was observed 50 m
from the Saltwater Treatment Plant, on
West Dock. In addition, walrus have
been observed on the armor of Northstar
Island three times since 2001; in 2004,
three walrus were observed on the
armor in two separate instances.
Between 2005 and 2009 additional
walruses were recorded.
Climate Change
Analyses of long-term environmental
data sets indicate that substantial
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13462
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
reductions in both the extent and
thickness of the arctic sea-ice cover have
occurred over the past 40 years. Record
minimum sea ice extent was recorded in
2002, 2005, and again in 2007; sea ice
cover in 2003 and 2004 was also
substantially below the 20-year mean.
Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as a
substrate for resting between foraging
bouts, calving, molting, isolation from
predators, and protection from storm
events. The juxtaposition of sea ice over
shallow-shelf habitat suitable for
benthic feeding is important to
walruses. Recent trends in the Chukchi
Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice
retreat off the continental shelf and over
deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting
significant adaptive challenges to
walruses in the region. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to walruses as a
result of diminishing sea ice cover
include: Shifts in range and abundance,
such as hauling out on land and
potential movements into the Beaufort
Sea; increased vulnerability to predation
and disturbance; declines in prey
species; increased mortality rates
resulting from storm events; and
premature separation of females and
dependent calves. Secondary effects on
animal health and condition resulting
from reductions in suitable foraging
habitat may also influence survivorship
and productivity. Future studies
investigating walrus distributions,
population status and trends, and
habitat use patterns are important for
responding to walrus conservation and
management issues associated with
environmental and habitat changes.
Polar Bear
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was
listed as threatened, range-wide, under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on
May 15, 2008, due to loss of sea ice
habitat caused by climate change (73 FR
28212). The Service published a final
special rule under section 4(d) of the
ESA for the polar bear on December 16,
2008 (73 FR 76249), which provides for
measures that are necessary and
advisable for the conservation of polar
bears. This means that this special 4(d)
rule: (a) In most instances, adopts the
conservation regulatory requirements of
the MMPA and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) for the polar bear as the
appropriate regulatory provisions for the
polar bear; (b) provides that incidental,
nonlethal take of polar bears resulting
from activities outside the bear’s current
range is not prohibited under the ESA;
(c) clarifies that the special rule does not
alter the Section 7 consultation
requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
the standard ESA protections for
threatened species when an activity is
not covered by an MMPA or CITES
authorization or exemption.
Polar bears occur throughout the
arctic. In Alaska, they have been
observed as far south in the eastern
Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and
the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971).
However, they are most commonly
found within 180 miles of the Alaskan
coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas,
from the Bering Strait to the Canadian
border. Two stocks occur in Alaska: (1)
The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and
(2) the Southern Beaufort Sea stock
(SBS). A summary of the CS and SBS
polar bear stocks are described below. A
detailed description of the CS and SBS
polar bear stocks can be found in the
‘‘Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar
Bear (Ursus maritimus)’’ (https://
alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
polarbear/issues.htm).
Management and conservation
concerns for the SBS and CS polar bear
populations include: Climate change,
which continues to increase both the
expanse and duration of open water in
summer and fall; human activities
within the near-shore environment,
including oil and gas activities;
atmospheric and oceanic transport of
contaminants into the Arctic; and overharvest, should polar bear stocks
become nutritionally stressed or decline
due to some combination of the aforementioned threats.
Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)
The SBS polar bear population is
shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with
earlier tag returns from harvested bears,
suggest that the SBS region comprised a
single population with a western
boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an
eastern boundary near Pearce Point,
Northwest Territories, Canada. Early
estimates from the mid 1980s suggested
the size of the SBS population was
approximately 1,800 polar bears,
although uneven sampling was known
to compromise the accuracy of that
estimate. A population analysis of the
SBS stock was completed in June 2006
through joint research coordinated
between the United States and Canada.
That analysis indicated the population
of the region between Icy Cape and
Pearce Point is now approximately
1,500 polar bears (95 percent confidence
intervals approximately 1,000–2,000).
Although the confidence intervals of the
current population estimate overlap the
previous population estimate of 1,800,
other statistical and ecological evidence
(e.g., high recapture rates encountered
in the field) suggest that the current
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
population is actually smaller than has
been estimated for this area in the past.
Recent analyses of radio-telemetry
data of spatio-temporal use patterns of
bears of the SBS stock using new spatial
modelling techniques suggest
realignment of the boundaries of the
SBS area. We now know that nearly all
bears in the central coastal region of the
Beaufort Sea are from the SBS
population, and that proportional
representation of SBS bears decreases to
both the west and east. For example,
only 50 percent of the bears occurring
in Barrow, Alaska, and Tuktoyaktuk,
Northwest Territories, are SBS bears,
with the remainder being from the CS
and Northern Beaufort Sea populations,
respectively. The recent radio-telemetry
data indicate that bears from the SBS
population seldom reach Pearce Point,
which is currently on the eastern
management boundary for the SBS
population. Conversely, SBS bears can
also be found in the western regions of
their range in the Chukchi Sea (i.e.,
Wainwright and Point Lay) in lower
proportions than the central portion of
their range.
Additional threats evaluated during
the listing included impacts from
activities such as industrial operations,
subsistence harvest, shipping, and
tourism. No other impacts were
considered significant in causing the
decline, but minimizing effects from
these activities could become
increasingly important for conservation
as polar bear numbers continue to
diminish. More information can be
found at: https://www.fws.gov/ and
https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
polarbear/issues.htm.
Chukchi/Bering Seas (CS)
The CS is defined as those polar bears
inhabiting the area as far west as the
eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian
Sea, as far east as Point Barrow, and
extending into the Bering Sea, with its
southern boundary determined by the
extent of annual ice. Based upon
telemetry studies, the western boundary
of the population has been set near
Chaunskaya Bay in northeastern Russia.
The eastern boundary is at Icy Cape,
Alaska, which also is the previous
western boundary of the SBS. This
eastern boundary constitutes a large
overlap zone with bears in the SBS
population. The status of the CS
population, which was believed to have
increased after the level of harvest was
reduced in 1972, is now thought to be
uncertain or declining. The most recent
population estimate for the CS
population is 2,000 animals. This was
based on extrapolation of aerial den
surveys from the early 1990s; however,
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
this crude estimate is currently
considered to be of little value for
management. Reliable estimates of
population size based upon mark and
recapture are not available for this
region and measuring the population
size remains a research challenge (Evans
et al. 2003).
With the action of the Bilateral
Commission under the Bilateral
Agreement on the Conservation and
Management of the Alaska-Chukotka
Polar Bear Population, legal subsistence
harvest for polar bears from the CS stock
occurs in both Russia and in western
Alaska, as long as this harvest does not
affect the sustainability of the polar bear
population. In Alaska, average annual
harvest levels declined by
approximately 50 percent between the
1980s and the 1990s and have remained
at low levels in recent years. There are
several factors potentially affecting the
harvest level in western Alaska. The
factor of greatest direct relevance is the
substantial illegal harvest in Chukotka.
In recent years a reportedly sizable
illegal harvest has occurred in Russia,
despite a ban on hunting that has been
in place since 1956. In addition, other
factors such as climatic change and its
effects on pack ice distribution, as well
as changing demographics and hunting
effort in native communities, could
influence the declining take. The
unknown rate of illegal take makes the
stable designation uncertain and
tentative.
Habitat
Polar bears evolved for life in the
Arctic and are distributed throughout
most ice-covered seas of the Northern
Hemisphere. They are generally limited
to areas where the sea is ice-covered for
much of the year; however, polar bears
are not evenly distributed throughout
their range. They are most abundant
near the shore in shallow-water areas,
and in other areas where currents and
ocean upwelling increase marine
productivity and maintain some open
water during the ice-covered season.
Over most of their range, polar bears
remain on the sea ice year-round or
spend only short periods on land.
The Service designated critical habitat
for polar bear populations in the United
States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR
76086; December 7, 2010). Critical
habitat identifies geographic areas that
contain features that are essential for the
conservation of a threatened or
endangered species and that may
require special management or
protection. The designation of critical
habitat under the ESA does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
conservation area. It does not allow
government or public access to private
lands. A critical habitat designation
does not affect private lands unless
Federal funds, permits, or activities are
involved. Federal agencies that
undertake, fund, or permit activities that
may affect critical habitat are required to
consult with the Service to ensure that
such actions do not adversely modify or
destroy critical habitat.
The Service’s designation of critical
habitat is divided into three areas or
units: barrier island habitat, sea ice
habitat (both described in geographic
terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a
functional description). Barrier island
habitat includes coastal barrier islands
and spits along Alaska’s coast and is
used for denning, refuge from human
disturbances, access to maternal dens
and feeding habitat, and travel along the
coast. Sea ice habitat is located over the
continental shelf, and includes water
300 m (984 feet) and less in depth.
Terrestrial denning habitat includes
lands within 32 km (20 miles) of the
northern coast of Alaska between the
Canadian border and the Kavik River
and within 8 km (5 miles) of the
coastline between the Kavik River and
Barrow. The total area designated would
cover approximately 484,734 square
kilometers (187,157 square miles) and is
entirely within the lands and waters of
the United States. A detailed
description of the critical habitat can be
found online at: https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/
federal_register_notice.pdf.
Denning and Reproduction
Female bears can be quite sensitive to
disturbances during denning. Females
can initiate breeding at 5 to 6 years of
age. Females without dependent cubs
breed in the spring. Pregnant females
enter maternity dens by late November,
and the young are usually born in late
December or early January. Only
pregnant females den for an extended
period during the winter; other polar
bears may excavate temporary dens to
escape harsh winter winds. An average
of two cubs is born. Reproductive
potential (intrinsic rate of increase) is
low. The average reproductive interval
for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a
female polar bear can produce about 8
to 10 cubs in her lifetime; in healthy
populations, 50 to 60 percent of the
cubs will survive.
In late March or early April, the
female and cubs emerge from the den.
If the mother moves young cubs from
the den before they can walk or
withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs
increases. Therefore, it is thought that
successful denning, birthing, and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13463
rearing activities require a relatively
undisturbed environment. Radio and
satellite telemetry studies elsewhere
indicate that denning can occur in
multi-year pack ice and on land. Recent
studies of the SBS indicate that the
proportion of dens on pack ice have
declined from approximately 60 percent
in 1985–1994 to 40 percent in 1998–
2004.
In northern Alaska, maternal polar
bear dens appear to be less concentrated
than in Canada to the east and in Russia
to the west. In Alaska, certain areas,
such as barrier islands (linear features of
low-elevation land adjacent to the main
coastline that are separated from the
mainland by bodies of water), river bank
drainages, much of the North slope
coastal plain, and coastal bluffs that
occur at the interface of mainland and
marine habitat, receive proportionally
greater use for denning than other areas.
Maternal denning occurs on tundrabearing barrier islands along the
Beaufort Sea and also in the large river
deltas, such as those associated with the
Colville and Canning rivers.
A recent study showed that the
proportion of polar bears denning in the
SBS on pack ice, which requires a high
level of sea-ice stability for successful
denning, declined from 62 percent in
1985–1994 to 37 percent in 1998–2004
(Fischbach et al. 2007). The authors
concluded that the denning distribution
changed in response to reductions in
stable old ice, increases in
unconsolidated ice, and lengthening of
the melt season. If sea-ice extent in the
Arctic continues to decrease and the
amount of unstable ice increases, a
greater proportion of polar bears may
seek to den on land (Durner et al. 2006,
Fischbach et al., 2007).
Prey
Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are the
primary prey of polar bears in most
areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus
barbatus) and walrus calves are hunted
occasionally. Polar bears also
opportunistically scavenge marine
mammal carcasses, notably bowhead
whale (Balaena mysticetus) carcasses at
Point Barrow, and Cross and Barter
islands, associated with the annual
subsistence hunt in these communities.
There are also anecdotal reports of polar
bears killing beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas) trapped in the
ice, although the importance of beluga
as a food source is not known. Polar
bears have also been observed
consuming non-food items including
Styrofoam, plastic, antifreeze, and
hydraulic and lubricating fluids.
Polar bears use the sea ice as a
platform to hunt seals. Polar bears often
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13464
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
hunt seals along leads—cracks in the
ice, and other areas of open water. Polar
bears also hunt seals at breathing holes,
or by breaking through the roof of seal
lairs. Lairs are excavated by seals in
snow drifts on top of the ice. Bears also
stalk seals in the spring when they haul
out on the ice in warm weather. The
relationship between ice type and polar
bear distribution is as yet unknown, but
it is suspected to be related to seal
availability. Due to changing sea ice
conditions, the area of open water and
proportion of marginal ice has increased
and extends later in the fall. This may
limit seal availability to polar bears as
the most productive areas for seals
appear to be over the shallower waters
of the continental shelf.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Mortality
Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30
years), have no natural predators, and
do not appear prone to death by
diseases or parasites. Cannibalism by
adult males on cubs and occasionally on
adult bears is known to occur. The most
significant source of premature adult
polar bear mortality is man. Before the
MMPA was passed in 1972, polar bears
were taken by sport hunters and
residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the
mean reported kill was 186 bears per
year. Seventy-five percent of these were
males, as cubs and females with cubs
were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska
Natives from coastal Alaskan villages
have been allowed to hunt polar bears
for their subsistence uses, for the
manufacture of handicraft and clothing
items. From 1980 to 2005, the total
annual harvest for Alaska averaged 101
bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea
and 36 percent from the Beaufort Sea.
Other sources of mortality related to
human activities include bears killed
during research activities, euthanasia of
sick or injured bears, and defense-of-life
kills by non-Natives (Brower et al.
2002).
Distributions and Abundance of Polar
Bears in the Beaufort Sea
Polar bears are dependent upon the
sea ice as a platform for foraging. The
most productive areas seem to be near
the ice edge, leads, or polynyas over the
continental shelf (Durner et al. 2004).
Polar bears can also be observed
throughout the year in the onshore and
nearshore environments, where they
will opportunistically scavenge on
marine mammal carcasses washed up
along the shoreline (Kalxdorff and
Fischbach 1998). Their distribution in
the coastal habitat can be influenced by
the movement of the seasonal pack ice.
More specifically, during the icecovered season, pregnant females can
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
use terrestrial denning habitat between
late-October and mid-April. The
percentage of pregnant females using
terrestrial habitat for denning is
unknown but, as stated earlier, the
proportion of dens on terrestrial habitat
has increased in recent years. In
addition, a small proportion of bears of
different cohorts may be found along the
coastline as well during this time
period. During the open water season
(July through September), a small
proportion of bears will utilize the
coastal environments while the majority
of the population will be on the ice edge
of the pack ice.
During the late summer/fall period
(August through October), polar bears
are most likely to be encountered along
the mainland coastline and barrier
islands, using these features as travel
corridors and hunting areas. Based on
Industry observations, encounter rates
are higher during the fall period (August
to October) than any other time period.
The duration the bears spend in these
coastal habitats depends on storm
events, ice conditions, and the
formation of the annual ice. In recent
years, polar bears have been observed in
larger numbers than previously
recorded during the fall period. The
remains of subsistence-harvested
bowhead whales at Cross and Barter
Islands provide a readily available food
source for the bears in these areas and
appear to play a role in these numbers
(Schliebe et al. 2006). Based on Industry
observations and coastal survey data
acquired by the Service, up to 125
individuals of the SBS bear population
have been observed during the fall
period between Barrow and the AlaskaCanada border.
Climate Change
For polar bears, habitat loss due to
changes in Arctic sea ice has been
identified as the primary cause of
decline in polar bear populations, where
the decline of sea ice is expected to
continue throughout the polar bear’s
range for the foreseeable future (73 FR
28212). In support of the listing,
Amstrup et al. (2007) projected that if
current sea ice declines continue, the
sea-ice retreat may eventually exclude
bears from onshore denning habitat in
the Polar Basin Divergent Region, where
they have projected a 42 percent loss of
optimal summer polar bear habitat by
2050. SBS and CS polar bear
populations inhabit this ecoregion, and
Amstrup et al. (2007) have projected
that these populations will be extirpated
within the next 45–75 years, if sea ice
declines continue at current rates.
Climate change is likely to have
serious consequences for the world-
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wide population of polar bears and their
prey (ACIA 2004, Derocher et al. 2004,
NRC 2003). Climate change is expected
to impact polar bears in a variety of
ways. The timing of ice formation and
breakup will impact seal distributions
and abundance, and, consequently, how
efficiently polar bears can hunt seals.
Reductions in sea ice are expected to
increase the polar bears’ energetic costs
of traveling, as moving through
fragmented sea ice and open water
requires more energy than walking
across consolidated sea ice.
Decreased sea ice extent may impact
the reproductive success of denning
polar bears. Polar bears require a stable
substrate for denning. As ice conditions
moderate, ice platforms become less
stable, and coastal dens become
vulnerable to erosion from storm surges.
In the 1990s, approximately 50 percent
of the maternal dens of the SBS polar
bear population occurred annually on
the pack ice in contrast to terrestrial
sites (Amstrup and Gardner 1994).
Recently, the proportion of dens on
pack ice declined from 62 percent in
1985–1994 to 37 percent in 1998–2004
(Fischbach et al. 2007). Terrestrial
denning is expected to increase in the
future, despite the threats of coastal
erosion.
Due to the changing ice conditions,
the Service anticipates that polar bear
use of the Beaufort Sea coast will
increase during the open-water season
(June through October). Indeed, polar
bear use of coastal areas during the fall
open-water period has increased in
recent years in the Beaufort Sea. This
change in distribution has been
correlated with the distance of the pack
ice from the coast at that time of year
(the farther from shore the leading edge
of the pack ice is, the more bears are
observed onshore) (Schliebe et al. 2006).
Reductions in sea ice will result in
increased distances between the ice
edge and land which, in turn, will lead
to increasing numbers of bears coming
ashore during the open-water period, or
possibly drowning in an attempt to
reach land. An increased number of
bears on land may increase human–bear
interactions or conflicts during this time
period.
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas
Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses
of Marine Mammals
Pacific walruses and polar bears have
been traditionally harvested by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes. The
harvest of these species plays an
important role in the culture and
economy of many villages throughout
coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is often
consumed, and the ivory is used to
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
manufacture traditional arts and crafts.
Polar bears are primarily hunted for
their fur, which is used to make cold
weather gear; however, their meat is
also consumed. Although walruses and
polar bears are a part of the annual
subsistence harvest of most rural
communities on the North Slope of
Alaska, these species are not as
significant a food resource as bowhead
whales, seals, caribou (Rangifer
tarandus), and fish.
An exemption under section 101(b) of
the MMPA allows Alaska Natives who
reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast
of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic
Ocean to take polar bears and walruses
if such taking is for subsistence
purposes or for purposes of creating and
selling authentic native articles of
handicrafts and clothing, as long as the
take is not done in a wasteful manner.
Sport hunting of both species has been
prohibited in the United States since
enactment of the MMPA in 1972.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Pacific Walrus—Harvest Information
Few walruses are harvested in the
Beaufort Sea along the northern coast of
Alaska as the primary range of Pacific
walruses is west and south of the
Beaufort Sea. Walruses constitute a
small portion of the total marine
mammal harvest for the village of
Barrow. Hunters from Barrow have
reported 477 walruses harvested in the
past 20 years with 65 of those since
2005. Reports indicate that up to six
animals, approximately 10 percent of
the recorded harvest, were taken east of
Point Barrow in the last 5 years within
the geographical limits of the incidental
take regulations. Hunters from Nuiqsut
and Kaktovik do not normally hunt
walruses unless the opportunity arises.
They have reported taking only three
walruses since the inception of the
regulations. Two walruses were
harvested on Cross Island in 2004, but
no walruses have been harvested since
2005. To date, two percent of the total
walrus harvest for Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik from 1994 to 2009 has
occurred within the geographic range of
the incidental take regulations.
Polar Bear—Harvest Information
Alaska Natives from coastal villages
are permitted to harvest polar bears.
Current harvest levels are believed to be
sustainable for the SBS population at
present (USFWS unpubl. data).
Although there are no restrictions under
the MMPA, a more restrictive Native-toNative agreement between the Inupiat
from Alaska and the Inuvialuit in
Canada was created in 1988. This
agreement, referred to as the InuvialuitInupiat Polar Bear Management
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Agreement, established quotas and
recommendations concerning protection
of denning females, family groups, and
methods of take. Although this
Agreement does not have the force of
law from either the Canadian or the U.S.
governments, the users have abided by
its terms. In Canada, users are subject to
provincial regulations consistent with
the Agreement. Commissioners for the
Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement set the
original quota at 76 bears in 1988, and
it was later increased to 80. The quota
was based on estimates of the
population size and age-specific
estimates of survival and recruitment.
One estimate suggests that harvest up to
1.5 percent of the adult females was
sustainable. Combining this estimate
and a 2:1 sex ratio (male:female) of the
harvest ratio, 4.5 percent of the total
population could be harvested each
year. In July 2010, at the most recent
Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear
Management Meeting, the quota was
reduced from 80 to 70 bears per year.
The Service has monitored the Alaska
polar bear harvest since 1980. The
Native subsistence harvest from the SBS
has remained relatively consistent since
1980 and averages 36 bears removed per
year. The combined harvest from Alaska
and Canada from the SBS appears
sustainable and equitable. During the
period 2005–2009, 84 bears were
harvested by residents of Barrow, 11 for
Kaktovik, 6 for Nuiqsut, 13 for
Wainwright, and 3 for Atqasuk for a
total of 117 bears harvested. This was a
decline of 40 harvested bears from the
previous timeframe analyzed (2000–
2004: 157 bears harvested). The Native
subsistence harvest is the largest source
of mortality related to human activities,
although several bears have been killed
during research activities, through
euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and
accidental drowning, or in defense of
human life by non-Natives.
Plan of Cooperation
As a condition of incidental take
authorization, and to ensure that
Industry activities do not impact
subsistence opportunities for
communities using the geographic
region, any applicant requesting an LOA
is required to present a record of
communication that reflects discussions
with the Native communities most
likely affected by the activity. The North
Slope native communities that could
potentially be affected by Industry
activities include Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik. Polar bear and Pacific
walruses inhabiting the Beaufort Sea
represent a small portion, in terms of
the number of animals, of the total
subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13465
for the villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik. Despite this, harvest of these
species is important to Alaska Natives.
Therefore, an important aspect of the
LOA process is that, prior to issuance of
an LOA, Industry must provide
evidence to the Service that an adequate
Plan of Cooperation (POC) has been
coordinated with any affected
subsistence community (or, as
appropriate, with the EWC, the Alaska
Nanuuq Commission (ANC), and the
North Slope Borough (NSB)) if, after
community consultations, Industry and
the community concludes that increased
mitigation and monitoring is necessary
to minimize impacts to subsistence
resources. Where relevant, a POC will
describe measures to be taken to
mitigate potential conflicts between the
proposed activity and subsistence
hunting. If requested by Industry or the
affected subsistence community, the
Service will review these plans and
provide guidance. The Service will
reject POCs if they do not provide
adequate safeguards to ensure that any
taking by Industry will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears and walruses
for taking for subsistence uses.
Included as part of the POC and the
overall State and Federal permitting
process of Industry activities, Industry
engages the Native communities in
numerous informational meetings.
During these community meetings,
Industry must ascertain if community
responses indicate that impact to
subsistence uses will occur as a result
of activities in the requested LOA. If
community concerns suggest that
Industry activities may have an impact
on the subsistence uses of these species,
the POC must provide the procedures
on how Industry will work with the
affected Native communities and what
actions will be taken to avoid interfering
with the availability of polar bear and
walruses for subsistence harvest.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects of
Proposed Activities on Subsistence Uses
No unmitigable concerns from the
potentially affected communities
regarding the availability of polar bears
or walruses for subsistence uses have
been identified through Industry
consultations in the potentially affected
communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and
Kaktovik in the geographic region.
Based on the proximity of the
proposed activities and the location of
its hunting areas for polar bears and
walruses, Nuiqsut continues to be the
community most likely affected by
Industry activities due to its close
proximity to Industry activities. Nuiqsut
is located within 5 miles of
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13466
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ConocoPhillips’ Alpine production field
to the north and ConocoPhillips’ Alpine
Satellite development field to the west.
For this rule, we determined that the
total taking of polar bears and walruses
will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of these
species for subsistence uses to Nuiqsut
residents during the duration of the
regulation. We base this conclusion on:
The results of coastal aerial surveys
conducted between 2000 and 2009
within the area; direct observations of
polar bears occurring on Cross Island
during Nuiqsut’s annual fall bowhead
whaling efforts; and anecdotal reports
and recent sightings of polar bears by
Nuiqsut residents. In addition, we have
received no evidence or reports that
bears are being deflected (i.e., altering
habitat use patterns by avoiding certain
areas) or being impacted in other ways
by the existing level of oil and gas
activity near communities or traditional
hunting areas that would diminish their
availability for subsistence use, and we
do not expect any change in the impact
of future activities during the regulatory
period.
Barrow and Kaktovik are expected to
be affected differently and to a lesser
degree by oil and gas activities than
Nuiqsut, due to their distance from
known Industry activities during the 5year period of the regulations. As
similar to past ITRs, through aerial
surveys, direct observations, community
consultations, and personal
communication with hunters, it appears
that subsistence opportunities for bears
and walruses have not been impacted by
past Industry operations and we do not
anticipate any new impacts to result
from the proposed activities.
Changes in activity locations may
trigger community concerns regarding
the effect on subsistence uses. Industry
will need to remain proactive to address
potential impacts on the subsistence
uses by affected communities through
consultations, and where warranted,
POCs. Open communication through
venues, such as public meetings, which
allow communities to express feedback
prior to the initiation of operations, will
be required as part of an LOA
application. If community subsistence
use concerns arise from new activities,
appropriate mitigation measures are
available and will be applied, such as a
cessation of certain activities at certain
locations during specified times of the
year, i.e., hunting seasons. Hence, we
find that any take will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears or walruses
for subsistence uses by residents of the
affected communities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Potential Effects of Oil and Gas
Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses,
Polar Bears and Prey Species
Individual walruses and polar bears
can be affected by Industry activities in
numerous ways. These include: (1)
Noise disturbance; (2) physical
obstructions; (3) human encounters; and
(4) effects on prey.
Pacific Walrus
The Beaufort Sea is beyond the
normal range of the Pacific walrus and
the likelihood of encountering walruses
during Industry operations is low.
During the time period of the proposed
regulations, Industry operations may
occasionally encounter small groups of
walruses swimming in open water or
hauled out onto ice floes or along the
coast. Although interactions are
expected to be infrequent, proposed
activities could potentially result in
some level of disturbances. The
response of walruses to disturbance
stimuli is highly variable. Anecdotal
observations by walrus hunters and
researchers suggest that males tend to be
more tolerant of disturbances than
females and individuals tend to be more
tolerant than groups. Females with
dependent calves are considered least
tolerant of disturbances. In other parts
of their range, disturbance events are
known to cause walrus groups to
abandon land or ice haulouts and
occasionally result in trampling injuries
or cow-calf separations, both of which
are potentially fatal. Calves and young
animals at the perimeter of the haulouts
appear particularly vulnerable to
trampling injuries.
1. Noise Disturbance
Noise generated by Industry activities,
whether stationary or mobile, has the
potential to disturb small numbers of
walruses. Potential impacts of Industrygenerated noise include displacement
from preferred foraging areas, increased
stress and energy expenditure,
interference with feeding, and masking
of communications. Any impact of
Industry noise on walruses is likely to
be limited to a few individuals rather
than the population due to their
geographic range and seasonal
distribution within the geographic
region. For example, Pacific walruses
generally inhabit the pack ice of the
Bering Sea and do not normally range
into the Beaufort Sea, although
individuals and small groups are
occasionally observed.
Reactions of marine mammals to
noise sources, particularly mobile
sources such as marine vessels, vary.
Reactions depend on the individuals’
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prior exposure to the disturbance
source; their need or desire to be in the
particular habitat or area where they are
exposed to the noise; and visual
presence of the disturbance sources.
Walruses are typically more sensitive to
disturbance when hauled out on land or
ice than when they are in the water. In
addition, females and young are
generally more sensitive to disturbance
than adult males.
Noise generated by Industry activities,
whether stationary or mobile, has the
potential to disturb small numbers of
walrus. The response of walrus to sound
sources may be either avoidance or
tolerance.
A. Stationary Sources
Endicott, BP’s Saltwater Treatment
Plant (located on the West Dock
Causeway), Oooguruk, and Northstar are
the offshore facilities that could produce
noise that has the potential to disturb
walruses. Liberty, as part of the Endicott
complex, will also have this potential
when it commences operations. A few
walruses have been observed in the
vicinity of these facilities. Three
walruses have hauled out on Northstar
Island since its construction in 2000,
and a walrus was observed swimming
near the Saltwater Treatment Plant in
2004. In 2007, a female and subadult
walrus were observed hauled-out on the
Endicott Causeway. In instances where
walruses have been seen near these
facilities, they have appeared to be
attracted to them, possibly as a resting
area or haulout.
B. Mobile Sources
Seismic operations introduce
substantial levels of noise into the
marine environment. There are
relatively little data available to evaluate
the potential response of walruses to
seismic operations. Although the
hearing sensitivity of walruses is poorly
known, source levels associated with
marine 3D and 2D seismic surveys are
thought to be high enough to cause
temporary hearing loss in other
pinniped species. Therefore, it is
possible that walruses within the 180decibel (dB re 1 μPa) safety radius for
seismic activities could suffer temporary
shifts in hearing thresholds.
Seismic surveys and high-resolution
site clearance surveys are typically
carried out in open water conditions
where walrus numbers are expected to
be low. This will minimize potential
interactions with large concentrations of
walruses which typically favor sea ice
habitats. Seismic operations in the
Beaufort Sea are more likely to
encounter small herds of walruses
swimming in open water. Potential
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
adverse effects of seismic noise on
swimming walruses can be reduced
through the implementation of
sufficient, practicable monitoring
coupled with adaptive management
responses (where the mitigation
measures required are dependent on
what is discovered during monitoring).
Previous open-water seismic
exploration has been conducted in
nearshore ice-free areas. This is the area
where any future open-water seismic
exploration will occur during the
duration of this rule. It is highly
unlikely that walruses will be present in
these areas, and, therefore, it is not
expected that seismic exploration would
disturb walruses. Furthermore, with the
adoption of the mitigation measures
described in Section VI, the Service
concludes that the only anticipated
effects of seismic operations in the
Beaufort Sea would be short-term
behavioral alterations of small numbers
of walruses.
C. Vessel Traffic
Although seismic surveys and
offshore drilling operations are expected
to occur in areas of open water away
from the pack ice, support vessels and/
or aircraft servicing seismic and drill
operations may encounter aggregations
of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The
sight, sound, or smell of humans and
machines could potentially displace
these animals from any ice haulouts.
Walruses react variably to noise from
vessel traffic; however, it appears that
low-frequency diesel engines cause less
of a disturbance than high-frequency
outboard engines. In addition, walrus
densities within their normal
distribution are highest along the edge
of the pack ice, and Industry vessel
traffic typically avoids these areas. The
reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is
dependent upon vessel type, distance,
speed, and previous exposure to
disturbances. Walruses in the water
appear to be less readily disturbed by
vessels than walruses hauled out on
land or ice. Furthermore, barges and
vessels associated with Industry
activities travel in open-water and avoid
large ice floes or land where walruses
are likely to be found. In addition,
walruses can use a vessel as a haul-out
platform. In 2009, during Industry
activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult
walrus was found hauled out on the
stern of a vessel. It eventually left once
confronted.
Drilling operations are expected to
involve drill ships attended by
icebreaking vessels to manage
incursions of sea ice. Ice management
operations are expected to have the
greatest potential for disturbances since
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
walruses are more likely to be
encountered in sea ice habitats and ice
management operations typically
require the vessel to accelerate, reverse
direction, and turn rapidly thereby
maximizing propeller cavitations and
producing significant noise. Previous
monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea
suggest that icebreaking activities can
displace some walrus groups up to
several kilometers away; however, most
groups of hauled-out walruses showed
little reaction beyond 800 m (0.5 mi).
Monitoring programs associated with
exploratory drilling operations in the
Chukchi Sea in 1990 noted that 25
percent of walrus groups encountered in
the pack ice during icebreaking
responded by diving into the water,
with most reactions occurring within 1
km (0.6 mi) of the ship. The monitoring
report noted that: (1) Walrus
distributions were closely linked with
pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active
prospects for relatively short time
periods; and (3) ice passing near active
prospects contained relatively few
animals. The report concluded that
effects of the drilling operations on
walruses were limited in time,
geographical scale, and the proportion
of population affected.
When walruses are present,
underwater noise from vessel traffic in
the Beaufort Sea may ‘‘mask’’ ordinary
communication between individuals by
preventing them from locating one
another. It may also prevent walruses
from using potential habitats in the
Beaufort Sea and may have the potential
to impede movement. Vessel traffic will
likely increase if offshore Industry
expands and may increase if warming
waters and seasonally reduced sea ice
cover alter northern shipping lanes.
Because offshore exploration
activities are expected to move
throughout the Beaufort Sea, impacts
associated with support vessels and
aircrafts are likely to be distributed in
time and space. Therefore, the only
effect anticipated would be short-term
behavioral alterations impacting small
numbers of walruses in the vicinity of
active operations. Adoption of
mitigation measures that include an
800-m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone for
marine vessels around walrus groups
observed on ice are expected to reduce
the intensity of disturbance events and
minimize the potential for injuries to
animals.
D. Aircraft Traffic
Aircraft overflights may disturb
walruses. Reactions to aircraft vary with
range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as
well as walrus age, sex, and group size.
Adult females, calves, and immature
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13467
walruses tend to be more sensitive to
aircraft disturbance. Fixed-winged
aircraft are less likely to elicit a
response than helicopter overflights.
Walruses are particularly sensitive to
changes in engine noise and are more
likely to stampede when planes turn or
fly low overhead. Researchers
conducting aerial surveys for walruses
in sea ice habitats have observed little
reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above
457 m (1,500 ft) (USFWS unpubl. data).
Although the intensity of the reaction to
noise is variable, walruses are probably
most susceptible to disturbance by fastmoving and low-flying aircraft (100 m
above ground level). In 2002, a walrus
hauled out near the SDC on the
McCovey prospect was disturbed when
a helicopter landed on the SDC.
However, most aircraft traffic is in
nearshore areas, where there are
typically few to no walruses.
2. Physical Obstructions
Based on known walrus distribution
and the very low numbers found in the
Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, it is
unlikely that walrus movements would
be displaced by offshore stationary
facilities, such as the Northstar Island or
causeway-linked Endicott/Liberty
complex, or vessel traffic. There is no
indication that the few walruses that
used Northstar Island as a haulout in
2001 were displaced from their
movements. Vessel traffic could
temporarily interrupt the movement of
walruses, or displace some animals
when vessels pass through an area. This
displacement would probably have
minimal or no effect on animals and
would last no more than a few hours.
3. Human Encounters
Human encounters with walruses
could occur in the course of Industry
activities, although such encounters
would be rare due to the limited
distribution of walruses in the Beaufort
Sea. These encounters may occur within
certain cohorts of the population, such
as calves or animals under stress. In
2004, a suspected orphaned calf hauled
out on the armor of Northstar Island
numerous times over a 48-hour period,
causing Industry to cease certain
activities and alter work patterns before
it disappeared in stormy seas.
Additionally, a walrus calf was
observed for 15 minutes during an
exploration program 60 feet from the
dock at Cape Simpson in 2006. It
climbed onto an extended barge ramp,
which was lowered. The walrus then
jumped in the water the moment the
crew member started the ramp engine.
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13468
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
4. Effect on Prey Species
1. Noise Disturbance
Walruses feed primarily on immobile
benthic invertebrates. The effect of
Industry activities on benthic
invertebrates most likely would be from
oil discharged into the environment. Oil
has the potential to impact walrus prey
species in a variety of ways including,
but not limited to, mortality due to
smothering or toxicity, perturbations in
the composition of the benthic
community, as well as altered metabolic
and growth rates. Relatively few
walruses are present in the central
Beaufort Sea. It is important to note that,
although the status of walrus prey
species within the Beaufort Sea are
poorly known, it is unclear to what
extent, if any, prey abundance plays in
limiting the use of the Beaufort Sea by
walruses. Further study of the Beaufort
Sea benthic community as it relates to
walruses is warranted. The low
likelihood of an oil spill large enough to
affect prey populations (see analysis in
the section titled Potential Impacts of
Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills
on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,
Pacific Walrus subsection) combined
with the fact that walruses are not
present in the region during the icecovered season and occur only
infrequently during the open-water
season indicates that Industry activities
will likely have limited indirect effects
on walruses through effects on prey
species.
Noise produced by Industry activities
during the open-water and ice-covered
seasons could potentially result in the
take of polar bears. The impact of noise
disturbances may affect bears differently
depending upon their reproductive
status (e.g., denning versus non-denning
bears). The best available scientific
information indicates that female polar
bears entering dens, or females in dens
with cubs, are more sensitive than other
age and sex groups to noises.
Noise disturbance can originate from
either stationary or mobile sources.
Stationary sources include:
Construction, maintenance, repair, and
remediation activities; operations at
production facilities; flaring excess gas;
and drilling operations from either
onshore or offshore facilities. Mobile
sources include: Vessel and aircraft
traffic; open-water seismic exploration;
winter vibroseis programs; geotechnical
surveys; ice road construction and
associated vehicle traffic, including
tracked vehicles and snowmobiles;
drilling; dredging; and ice-breaking
vessels.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on
Walruses
As with previous ITRs, Industry noise
disturbance and associated vessel traffic
may have a more pronounced impact
than physical obstructions or human
encounters on walruses in the Beaufort
Sea. However, due to the limited
number of walruses inhabiting the
geographic region during the open-water
season and lack of walruses in the
region during the ice-covered season,
the Service expects minimal impact to
only small numbers of individual
walruses and that any take will have a
negligible impact on this stock during
the 5-year regulatory period.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Polar Bear
Polar bears are present in the region
of activity and, therefore, oil and gas
activities could impact polar bears in
various ways during both open-water
and ice-covered seasons. Impacts from:
(1) Noise disturbance; (2) physical
obstructions; (3) human encounters; and
(4) effects on prey species are described
below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
A. Stationary Sources
All production facilities on the North
Slope in the area to be covered by this
rulemaking are currently located within
the landfast ice zone. Typically, most
polar bears occur in the active ice zone,
far offshore, hunting throughout the
year; although some bears also spend a
limited amount of time on land, coming
ashore to feed, den, or move to other
areas. At times, usually during the fall
season when fall storms and ocean
currents may deposit ice-bound bears on
land, bears may remain along the coast
or on barrier islands for several weeks
until the ice returns.
Noise produced by stationary Industry
activities could elicit variable responses
from polar bears. The noise may act as
a deterrent to bears entering the area, or
the noise could potentially attract bears.
Attracting bears to these facilities,
especially exploration facilities in the
coastal or nearshore environment, could
result in human-bear encounters,
unintentional harassment, lethal take, or
intentional hazing (stipulated under
separate authorization) of the bear.
Noise from Industry activities has the
ability to disturb bears at den sites.
However, the timing of potential
Industry impacts coupled with the time
period in the denning cycle when any
disturbance occurs can have varying
effects and impacts on the female bear
and the family group. Researchers have
suggested that disturbances, including
noise, can negatively impact bears
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
during the early stages of denning,
where the pregnant female has limited
investment at the site, by causing them
to abandon the site in search of another
one. Premature site abandonment may
also occur after the bears have emerged,
but while they are still at the den site,
when cubs are acclimating to their ‘‘new
environment’’ and the female bear is
now vigilant of the environment in
regards to her offspring. During this
time, in-air noises may disturb the
female to the point of abandoning the
den site before the cubs are
physiologically ready to move from the
site.
An example of a den abandonment in
the early stages of denning occurred in
January 1985, where a female polar bear
appears to have abandoned her den in
response to Rolligon traffic, which was
occurring within 500 meters of the den
site. In 2002, noise associated with a
polar bear research camp in close
proximity to a bear den is thought to
have caused a female bear and her
cub(s) to abandon their den and move
to the ice prematurely. In 2006, a female
and two cubs emerged from a den 400
meters from an active river crossing
construction site. The den site was
abandoned within hours of cub
emergence after only 3 days. In 2009, a
female and two cubs emerged from a
den site within 100 meters of an active
ice road with heavy traffic and quickly
abandoned the site. While such events
may have occurred, information
indicates they have been infrequent and
isolated. It is important to note that the
knowledge of these recent examples
occurred because of the monitoring and
reporting program established by the
ITRs.
Conversely, during the ice-covered
seasons of 2000–2001 and 2001–2002,
dens known to be active were located
within approximately 0.4 km and 0.8
km (0.25 mi and 0.5 mi), respectively,
of remediation activities on Flaxman
Island in the Beaufort Sea with no
observed impact to the polar bears. This
suggests that polar bears exposed to
routine industrial noises may habituate
to those noises and show less vigilance
than bears not exposed to such stimuli.
This observation came from a study that
occurred in conjunction with industrial
activities performed on Flaxman Island
in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens
in 2002 and 2003 (N = 8) (Smith et al.
2007). Researchers assessed vigilant
behavior with two potential measures of
disturbance: proportion of time
scanning their surroundings and the
frequency of observable vigilant
behaviors. The two bears exposed to the
industrial activity within 1.6 km spent
less time scanning their surroundings
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
than bears in undisturbed areas and
engaged in vigilant behavior
significantly less often.
The potential for disturbance
increases once the female emerges from
the den, where she is potentially more
vigilant to sights and in-air sounds as
she uses the den site. As noted earlier,
in some cases, while the female is in the
den, Industry activities have progressed
near the den sites with no perceived
disturbance. Indeed, in the 2006 den
incident previously discussed, it was
believed that Industry activity
commenced in the area after the den
had been established. Ancillary
activities occurred within 50 meters of
the den site with no apparent
disturbance while the female was in the
den. Ongoing activity most likely had
been occurring for approximately 3
months in the vicinity of the den.
Likewise, in 2009, two bear dens were
located along an active ice road. The
bear at one den site appeared to
establish her site prior to ice road
activity and was exposed to
approximately three months of activity
100 meters away and emerged at the
appropriate time. The other den site was
discovered after ice road construction
commenced. This site was exposed to
ice road activity, 100 meters away, for
approximately one month. In all, there
have been three recorded examples
(2006, 2009, and 2010) of pregnant
female bears establishing dens, prior to
Industry activity occurring within 400
meters of the den site, and remaining in
the den through the normal denning
cycle despite the nearby activity.
More recent data suggests that, with
proper mitigation measures in effect,
activities can continue in the vicinity of
dens until the emergence by the female
bear. At that time, mitigation, such as
activity shutdowns near the den and 24hour monitoring of the den site can
limit bear/human interactions, thereby
allowing the female bear to abandon the
den naturally and minimize impacts to
the animals. For example, in the spring
of 2010, an active den site was observed
approximately 60 meters from a heavily
used ice road. A 1-mile exclusion zone
was established around the den, closing
a 2-mile portion of the road. Monitors
were assigned to observe bear activity
and monitor human activity to
minimize any other impacts to the bear
group. These mitigation efforts
minimized disturbance to the bears and
allowed them to abandon the den site
naturally.
B. Mobile Sources
During the open-water season in the
SBS, polar bears spend the majority of
their lives on the pack ice, which limits
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
the chances of impacts on polar bears
from Industry activities. Although polar
bears have been documented in open
water, miles from the ice edge or ice
floes, this has been a relatively rare
occurrence. In the open-water season,
Industry activities are generally limited
to vessel-based exploration activities,
such as ocean-bottom cable (OBC) and
shallow hazards surveys. These
activities avoid ice floes and the
multiyear ice edge; however, they may
contact bears in open water and the
effects of such encounters will be shortterm behavior disturbance. Polar bears
are more likely to be affected by on-ice
seismic surveys rather than open-water
surveys. Although no on-ice seismic
surveys have reported polar bear
observations during the period of the
last ITRs, disturbance from on-ice
operations would most likely occur by
vehicle and nonpermanent camp
activity associated with the seismic
project. These effects would be minimal
due to the mobility of such projects and
limited to small-scale alterations to bear
movements.
C. Vessel Traffic
During the open-water season, most
polar bears remain offshore associated
with the multiyear pack ice and are not
typically present in the ice-free areas
where vessel traffic occurs. Barges and
vessels associated with Industry
activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes. If there is any encounter
between a vessel and a bear, it would
most likely result in short-term
behavioral disturbance only. Indeed,
observations from monitoring programs
report that in the rare occurrence when
bears are encountered in open water
swimming, they retreat from the vessel
as it passes the bear.
D. Aircraft Traffic
Routine aircraft traffic should have
little to no effect on polar bears;
however, extensive or repeated
overflights of fixed-wing aircraft or
helicopters could disturb polar bears.
Behavioral reactions of non-denning
polar bears should be limited to shortterm changes in behavior, such as
evading the plane by retreating from the
stimulus. They would have no longterm impact on individuals and no
discernible impacts on the polar bear
population. In contrast, denning bears
may abandon or depart their dens early
in response to repeated noise produced
by extensive aircraft overflights.
Mitigation measures, such as minimum
flight elevations over polar bears or
areas of concern and flight restrictions
around known polar bear dens, will be
required, as appropriate, to reduce the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13469
likelihood that bears are disturbed by
aircraft.
E. Offshore Seismic Exploration and
Exploratory Drilling
Although polar bears are typically
associated with the pack ice during
summer and fall, open-water seismic
exploration activities can encounter
polar bears in the central Beaufort Sea
in late summer or fall. It is unlikely that
seismic exploration activities or other
geophysical surveys during the openwater season would result in more than
temporary behavioral disturbance to
polar bears. Any disturbance would be
visual and auditory in nature, where
bears could be deflected from their
route. Polar bears could be encountered
on ice where they would be unaffected
by underwater sound from the airguns.
Bears could also be encountered in the
water. Sound levels received by polar
bears in the water would be attenuated
because polar bears generally do not
dive much below the surface and they
normally swim with their heads above
the surface, where noises produced
underwater are weak. This occurs
because received levels of airgun sounds
are reduced near the surface because of
the pressure release effect at the water’s
surface (Greene and Richardson 1988,
Richardson et al. 1995).
Noise and vibrations produced by oil
and gas activities during the ice-covered
season could potentially result in
impacts on polar bears. During this time
of year, denning female bears as well as
mobile, non-denning bears could be
exposed to and affected differently by
potential impacts from seismic
activities. As stated earlier, disturbances
to denning females, either on land or on
ice are of particular concern.
As part of the LOA application for
seismic surveys during denning season,
Industry provides us with the proposed
seismic survey routes. To minimize the
likelihood of disturbance to denning
females, the Service evaluates these
routes along with information about
known polar bear dens, historic denning
sites, and delineated denning habitat
prior to authorizing seismic activities.
Previous regulations have analyzed
open water exploration activity, such as
seismic and drilling, even though this
type of open water activity has not
occurred on an annual basis in the
Beaufort Sea. In the previous ITRs,
open-water seismic programs and
exploratory drilling programs were
analyzed for impacts to polar bears and
walruses. Due to the limited scope of
the planned offshore activities, the
Service concluded that this level of
activity would affect only small
numbers of polar bears and walrus and
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13470
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
would have no more than negligible
effects on the populations. The actual
number of offshore seismic projects
during the previous regulatory period
was smaller than the amount analyzed.
We issued LOAs for five offshore
seismic projects, and no offshore
drilling projects occurred, even though
drilling projects were requested twice
during the previous ITRs (2006–2011).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Physical Obstructions
There is some chance that Industry
facilities would act as physical barriers
to movements of polar bears. Most
facilities are located onshore and inland
where polar bears are only occasionally
found. The offshore and coastal
facilities are most likely to be
approached by polar bears. The majority
of Industry bear observations occur
within 1 mile of the coastline as bears
use this area as travel corridors. Bears
traversing along the coastline can
encounter Industry facilities located on
the coast, such as CPAI and Eni
facilities at Oliktok Point and the Point
Thomson development. As bears contact
these facilities, the chances for bear/
human interactions increase. The
Endicott and West Dock causeways, as
well as the facilities supporting them
have the potential to act as barriers to
movements of polar bears because they
extend continuously from the coastline
to the offshore facility. However, polar
bears appear to have little or no fear of
man-made structures and can easily
climb and cross gravel roads and
causeways, and polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing
existing roads and causeways in the
Prudhoe Bay oilfields. Offshore
production facilities, such as Northstar,
may be approached by polar bears, but
due to their layout (i.e., continuous
sheet pile walls around the perimeter)
and monitoring plans the bears may not
gain access to the facility itself. This
situation may present a small-scale,
local obstruction to the bears’
movement, but also minimizes the
likelihood of bear/human encounters.
3. Human Encounters
Whenever humans work in polar bear
habitat, there is a chance of an
encounter, even though, historically,
such encounters have been uncommon
in association with Industry. Encounters
can be dangerous for both polar bears
and humans.
Although bears may be found along
the coast during open-water periods,
most of the SBS bear stock inhabits the
multiyear pack ice during this time of
year. Encounters are more likely to
occur during fall and winter periods
when greater numbers of the bears are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
found in the coastal environment
searching for food and possibly den
sites later in the season. Potentially
dangerous encounters are most likely to
occur at gravel islands or on-ice
exploratory sites. These sites are at ice
level and are easily accessible by polar
bears. Industry has developed and uses
devices to aid in detecting polar bears,
including bear monitors and motion
detection systems. In addition, some
companies take steps to actively prevent
bears from accessing facilities using
safety gates and fences.
Offshore production islands, such as
the Northstar production facility, may
attract polar bears. In 2004, Northstar
accounted for 41 percent of all polar
bear observations Industry-wide. They
reported 37 sightings in which 54 polar
bears were observed. The offshore sites
continue to account for the majority of
the polar bear observations. The
offshore facilities of Endicott, Liberty,
Northstar, and Oooguruk accounted for
47 percent of the bear observations
between 2005 and 2008 (182 of 390
sightings). It should be noted that,
although most bears were observed
passing through the area, the sites may
also serve as an attractant, which could
result in increased incidence of
harassment of bears. Employee training
and company policies currently reduce
and mitigate such encounters.
Depending upon the circumstances,
bears can be either repelled from or
attracted to sounds, smells, or sights
associated with Industry activities. In
the past, such interactions have been
mitigated through conditions on the
LOA, which require the applicant to
develop a polar bear interaction plan for
each operation. These plans outline the
steps the applicant will take, such as
garbage disposal procedures, to
minimize impacts to polar bears by
reducing the attraction of Industry
activities to polar bears. Interaction
plans also outline the chain of
command for responding to a polar bear
sighting. In addition to interaction
plans, Industry personnel participate in
polar bear interaction training while on
site.
Employee training programs are
designed to educate field personnel
about the dangers of bear encounters
and to implement safety procedures in
the event of a bear sighting. The result
of these polar bear interaction plans and
training allows on-site personnel to
detect bears and respond safely and
appropriately. Often, personnel are
instructed to leave an area where bears
are seen. Many times polar bears are
monitored until they move out of the
area. Sometimes, this response involves
deterring the bear from the site. If bears
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are reluctant to leave on their own, in
most cases bears can be displaced by
using pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker shells)
or other forms of deterrents (e.g.,
vehicle, vehicle horn, vehicle siren,
vehicle lights, spot lights). The purpose
of these plans and training is to
eliminate the potential for injury to
personnel or lethal take of bears in
defense of human life. Since the
regulations went into effect in 1993,
there has been no known instance of a
bear being killed or Industry personnel
being injured by a bear as a result of
Industry activities. The mitigation
measures associated with these
regulations have been proven to
minimize bear/human interactions and
will continue to be requirements of
future LOAs, as appropriate.
There is the potential for humans to
come into contact with polar bear dens
as well. Known polar bear dens around
the oilfield, discovered
opportunistically, or as a result of
planned surveys, such as tracking
marked bears or den detection surveys,
are monitored by the Service. However,
these sites are only a small percentage
of the total active polar bear dens for the
SBS stock in any given year. Industry
routinely coordinates with the Service
to determine the location of Industry’s
activities relative to known dens and
denning habitat. General LOA
provisions require Industry operations
to avoid known polar bear dens by 1
mile.
There is the possibility that an
unknown den may be encountered
during Industry activities as well.
Between 2002 and 2010, six previously
unknown maternal polar bears dens
were encountered by Industry during
the course of project activities. Once a
previously unknown den is identified
by Industry, the Service requires that
the den be reported, triggering
mitigation measures per response plans.
Communication between Industry and
the Service and the implementation of
mitigation measures, such as the 1-mile
exclusion area around the now known
den and 24-hour monitoring of the site,
ensures that disturbance is minimized.
4. Effect on Prey Species
Ringed seals are the primary prey of
polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and
inhabit the nearshore waters where
offshore Industry activities occur.
Industry will mainly have an effect on
seals through the potential for
contamination (oil spills) or industrial
noise disturbance. Effects of
contamination from oil discharges for
seals are described in the following
section, ‘‘Potential Impacts of Waste
Product Discharge and Oil Spills on
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,’’
under the ‘‘Pacific Walrus’’ subsection.
Studies have shown that seals can be
displaced from certain areas such as
pupping lairs or haulouts and abandon
breathing holes near Industry activity.
However, these disturbances appear to
have minor effects and are short term.
Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on
Polar Bears
The Service anticipates that potential
impacts of Industry noise, physical
obstructions, and human encounters on
polar bears would be limited to shortterm changes in behavior and should
have no long-term impact on
individuals and no impacts on the polar
bear population.
Potential impacts will be mitigated
through various requirements stipulated
within LOAs. Mitigation measures
required for all projects will include a
polar bear and/or walrus interaction
plan, and a record of communication
with affected villages that may serve as
the precursor to a POC with the village
to mitigate effects of the project on
subsistence activities. Mitigation
measures that may be used on a case-bycase basis include the use of trained
marine mammal monitors associated
with marine activities, the use of den
habitat maps developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the use of
FLIR or polar bear scent-trained dogs to
determine the presence or absence of
dens, timing of the activity to limit
disturbance around dens, the 1-mile
buffer surrounding known dens, and
suggested work actions around known
dens. The Service implements certain
mitigation measures based on need and
effectiveness for specific activities based
largely on timing and location. For
example, the Service will implement
different mitigation measures for a 2month-long exploration project 20 miles
inland from the coast, than for an
annual nearshore development project
in shallow waters. For example, based
on past monitoring information, bears
are more prevalent in the coastal areas
than 20 miles inland and, therefore,
there may be differences in monitoring
and mitigation measures required by the
Service to limit the disturbance to bears
and to limit human/bear interactions.
The Service manages Industry
activities occurring in polar bear
denning habitat by applying proactive
and reactive mitigation measures to
limit Industry impact to denning bears.
Proactive mitigation measures are
actions taken to limit den site exposure
to Industry activities in denning habitat
before den locations are known. They
include the requirement of a polar bear
interaction plan, possible den detection
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
surveys, and polar bear awareness and
safety training. Reactive mitigation
measures are actions taken to minimize
Industry impact to polar bear dens once
the locations have been identified. They
can include applying the 1-mile buffer
around the den site and 24-hour
monitoring of the den site.
An example of the application of this
process would be in the case of Industry
activities occurring around a known
bear den, where a standard condition of
LOAs requires Industry projects to have
developed a polar bear interaction plan
and to maintain a 1-mile buffer between
Industry activities and any known
denning sites. In addition, we may
require Industry to avoid working in
known denning habitat until bears have
left their dens. To further reduce the
potential for disturbance to denning
females, we have conducted research, in
cooperation with Industry, to enable us
to accurately detect active polar bear
dens through the use of remote sensing
techniques, such as maps of denning
habitat along the Beaufort Sea coast and
FLIR imagery.
FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is
used in cooperation with coastal polar
bear denning habitat maps. Industry
activity areas, such as coastal ice roads,
are compared to polar bear denning
habitat, and transects are then created to
survey the specific habitat within the
Industry area. FLIR heat signatures
within a standardized den location
protocol are noted, and further
mitigation measures are placed around
these locations. FLIR surveys are more
effective at detecting polar bear dens
than visual observations. The
effectiveness increases when FLIR
surveys are combined with site-specific,
scent-trained dog surveys. These
techniques will continue to be required
as conditions of LOAs when
appropriate.
In addition, Industry has sponsored
cooperative research evaluating polar
bear hearing, the development of polar
bear audiograms, the transmission of
noise and vibration through the ground,
snow, ice, and air; and the received
levels of noise and vibration in polar
bear dens. This information has been
useful to refine site-specific mitigation
measures. Using current mitigation
measures, Industry activities have had
no known polar bear population-level
effects during the period of previous
regulations. We anticipate that, with
continued mitigation measures, the
impacts to denning and non-denning
polar bears will be at the same low level
as in previous regulations.
Monitoring data suggests that the
number of polar bear encounters in the
oil fields fluctuates from year to year.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13471
Polar bear observations by Industry
increased between 2004 and 2009 (89
bear observations in 2004 and 420 bear
observations in 2009). These
observations range from bears observed
from a distance and passively moving
through the area to bears that pose a
threat to personnel and are hazed for
their safety and the safety of Industry
personnel. This increase in observations
is believed to be due to an increased
numbers of bears using terrestrial
habitat, an effort by Industry and the
Service to increase polar bear awareness
and safety to Industry personnel, and an
increase in the number of people
monitoring bear activities around the
facilities. Although bear observations
appear to have increased, bear/human
encounters remain uncommon events.
We anticipate that bear/human
encounters during the 5-year period of
these regulations will remain
uncommon.
Potential Impacts of Waste Product
Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Individual walruses and polar bears
can potentially be affected by Industry
activities through waste product
discharge and oil spills. These potential
impacts are described below.
Polar bear and walrus ranges overlap
with many active and planned oil and
gas operations. Polar bears may be
susceptible to oil spills from platforms/
production facilities and pipelines in
both offshore and onshore habitat, while
walruses will be susceptible from
offshore facilities. To date, no major
offshore oil spills have occurred in the
Alaska Beaufort Sea. Some on-shore
spills have occurred on the North Slope
at production facilities or pipelines
connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System with no known impacts
to polar bears.
Oil spills are unintentional releases of
oil or petroleum products. In
accordance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit
Program, all North Slope oil companies
must submit an oil spill contingency
plan. It is illegal to discharge oil into the
environment, and a reporting system
requires operators to report spills.
Between 1977 and 1999, an average of
70 oil and 234 waste product spills
occurred annually on the North Slope
oil fields. Although most spills have
been small (less than 50 barrels) by
Industry standards, larger spills (more
than 500 barrels) accounted for much of
the annual volume. Seven large spills
have occurred between 1985 and 2009
on the North Slope. The largest spill
occurred in the spring of 2006 when
approximately 260,000 gallons leaked
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13472
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
from flow lines near a gathering center.
In November 2009, a 46,000 gallon spill
occurred as well. These spills originated
in the terrestrial environment in heavily
industrialized areas not used by polar
bears or walrus and posed minimal
harm to walruses and polar bears. To
date, no major offshore spills have
occurred on the North Slope.
Spills of crude oil and petroleum
products associated with onshore
production facilities during ice-covered
and open-water seasons have been
minor spills. Larger spills are generally
production-related and could occur at
any production facility or pipeline
connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System. In addition to onshore
sites, this could include offshore
facilities, such as causeway-linked
Endicott or the sub-sea pipeline-linked
Northstar Island. The trajectories of
large offshore spills from Northstar and
the proposed Liberty facilities have been
modeled and analyzed in past ITRs to
examine potential impacts to polar
bears.
Oil spills in the marine environment
that can accumulate at the ice edge, in
ice leads, and similar areas of
importance to polar bears and walruses
are of particular concern. As additional
offshore oil exploration and production
projects come on line the potential for
large spills in the marine environment
increases.
During the open water season, polar
bears could encounter oil if it is released
during exploratory operations, from
existing offshore platforms, or from a
marine vessel spill. Furthermore, the
shipping of crude oil or oil products
could also increase the likelihood of an
oil spill due to predicted reductions in
Arctic sea ice extent and improved
access to shipping lanes, where a
projected extended shipping season is
expected to occur around the margins of
the Arctic Basin.
Spilled oil present in fall or spring
during formation or breakup of ice
presents a greater risk because of both
the difficulties associated with cleaning
oil in mixed, broken ice, and the
presence of bears and other wildlife in
prime feeding areas over the Continental
Shelf during this period. Oil spills
occurring in areas where polar bears are
concentrated, such as along off-shore
leads or polynyas, and along terrestrial
habitat where marine mammal carcasses
occur, such as at Cross and Barter
islands during fall whaling, would affect
more bears than spills in other areas.
Oiling of food sources, such as ringed
seals, may result in indirect effects on
polar bears, such as a local reduction in
ringed seal numbers, or a change to the
local distribution of seals and bears.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
More direct effects on polar bears could
occur from: (1) Ingestion of oiled prey,
potentially resulting in reduced survival
of individual bears; (2) oiling of fur and
subsequent ingestion of oil from
grooming; and (3) disturbance, injury, or
death from interactions with humans
during oil spill response activities. Polar
bears may be particularly vulnerable to
disturbance when nutritionally stressed
and during denning. Cleanup operations
that disturb a den could result in death
of cubs through abandonment, and
perhaps death of the sow as well. In
spring, females with cubs of the year
that denned near or on land and migrate
to offshore areas may encounter oil
(Stirling in Geraci and St. Aubin 1990).
In the event of an oil spill, Service–
approved response strategies are in
place to reduce the impact of a spill on
wildlife populations. Response efforts
will be conducted under a three-tier
approach characterized as: (1) Primary
response—involving containment,
dispersion, burning, or clean-up of oil;
(2) secondary response—involving
hazing, herding, preventative capture/
relocation, or additional methods to
remove or deter wildlife from affected or
potentially-affected areas; and (3)
tertiary response—involving capture,
cleaning, treatment, and release of
wildlife. If the decision is made to
conduct response activities, primary
and secondary response options will be
vigorously applied since little evidence
exists that tertiary methods will be
effective for cleaning oiled polar bears.
OCS operators are advised to review
the Service’s Oil Spill Response Plan for
Polar Bears in Alaska at (https://
www.fws.gov/Contaminants/
FWS_OSCP_05/
FWSContingencyTOC.htm) when
developing spill-response tactics.
Several factors will be considered when
responding to an oil spill. They include
the location of the spill, the magnitude
of the spill, oil viscosity and thickness,
accessibility to spill site, spill trajectory,
time of year, weather conditions (i.e.,
wind, temperature, precipitation),
environmental conditions (i.e., presence
and thickness of ice), number, age, and
sex of polar bears that are (or are likely
to be) affected, degree of contact,
importance of affected habitat, cleanup
proposal, and likelihood of bear/human
interactions.
The BOEMRE has acknowledged that
there are difficulties in effective oil-spill
response in broken ice conditions, and
The National Academy of Sciences has
determined that ‘‘no current cleanup
methods remove more than a small
fraction of oil spilled in marine waters,
especially in the presence of broken
ice.’’ The BOEMRE advocates the use of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
nonmechanical methods of spill
response, such as in-situ burning,
during periods when broken ice would
hamper an effective mechanical
response (MMS 2008b). An in situ burn
has the potential to rapidly remove large
quantities of oil and can be employed
when broken-ice conditions may
preclude mechanical response.
However, oil spill cleanup in the broken
ice and open water conditions that
characterize Arctic waters is
problematic.
Evaluation of Effects of Oil Spills
Pacific Walrus
As stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is
not within the primary range for the
Pacific walrus; therefore, the probability
of walruses encountering oil or waste
products as a result of a spill from
Industry activities is low. Onshore oil
spills would not impact walruses unless
oil moved into the offshore
environment. In the event of a spill that
occurs during the open-water season, oil
in the water column could drift offshore
and possibly encounter a small number
of walruses. Oil spills from offshore
platforms could also contact walruses
under certain conditions. Spilled oil
during the ice-covered season not
cleaned up could become part of the ice
substrate and be eventually released
back into the environment during the
following open-water season. During
spring melt, oil would be collected by
spill response activities, but it could
eventually contact a limited number of
walruses.
Little is known about the effects of oil
specifically on walruses; no studies
have been conducted. Hypothetically,
walruses may react to oil much like
other pinnipeds. Adult walruses may
not be severely affected by the oil spill
through direct contact, but they will be
extremely sensitive to any habitat
disturbance by human noise and
response activities. In addition, due to
the gregarious nature of walruses, an oil
spill would most likely affect multiple
individuals in the area. Walruses may
also expose themselves more often to
the oil that has accumulated at the edge
of a contaminated shore or ice lead if
they repeatedly enter and exit the water.
Walrus calves are most likely to suffer
the effects of oil contamination. Female
walruses with calves are very attentive,
and the calf will stay close to its mother
at all times, including when the female
is foraging for food. Walrus calves can
swim almost immediately after birth
and will often join their mother in the
water. It is possible that an oiled calf
will be unrecognizable to its mother
either by sight or by smell, and be
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
abandoned. However, the greater threat
may come from an oiled calf that is
unable to swim away from the
contamination and a devoted mother
that would not leave without the calf,
resulting in the potential mortality of
both animals.
Walruses have thick skin and blubber
layers for insulation and very little hair.
Thus, they exhibit no grooming
behavior, which lessens their chance of
ingesting oil. Heat loss is regulated by
control of peripheral blood flow through
the animal’s skin and blubber. The
peripheral blood flow is decreased in
cold water and increased at warmer
temperatures. Direct exposure of
walruses to oil is not believed to have
any effect on the insulating capacity of
their skin and blubber, although it is
unknown if oil could affect their
peripheral blood flow.
Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can
occur from contact with oil because
some of the oil penetrates into the skin,
causing inflammation and death of some
tissue. The dead tissue is discarded,
leaving behind an ulcer. While these
skin lesions have only rarely been found
on oiled seals, the effects on walruses
may be greater because of a lack of hair
to protect the skin. Direct exposure to
oil can also result in conjunctivitis. Like
other pinnipeds, walruses are
susceptible to oil contamination in their
eyes. Continuous exposure to oil will
quickly cause permanent eye damage.
Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes
presents another threat to marine
mammals. In studies conducted on
pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage,
inflammation, congestion, and nerve
damage resulted after exposure to
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a
period of 24 hours. If the walruses were
also under stress from molting,
pregnancy, etc., the increased heart rate
associated with the stress would
circulate the hydrocarbons more
quickly, lowering the tolerance
threshold for ingestion or inhalation.
Walruses are benthic feeders, and
much of the benthic prey contaminated
by an oil spill would be killed
immediately. Others that survived
would become contaminated from oil in
bottom sediments, possibly resulting in
slower growth and a decrease in
reproduction. Bivalve mollusks, a
favorite prey species of the walrus, are
not effective at processing hydrocarbon
compounds, resulting in highly
concentrated accumulations and longterm retention of the contamination
within the organism. In addition,
because walruses feed primarily on
mollusks, they may be more vulnerable
to a loss of this prey species than other
pinnipeds that feed on a larger variety
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
of prey. Furthermore, complete recovery
of a bivalve mollusk population may
take 10 years or more, forcing walruses
to find other food resources or move to
nontraditional areas.
The small number of walruses in the
Beaufort Sea and the low potential for
a large oil spill, which is discussed in
the following Risk Assessment Analysis,
limit potential impacts to walruses to
only certain events (a large oil spill) and
then only to a limited number of
individuals. In the unlikely event there
is an oil spill and walruses in the same
area, mitigation measures, especially
those to deflect and deter animals from
spilled areas, would minimize any
effect. Fueling crews have personnel
that are trained to handle operational
spills and contain them. If a small
offshore spill occurs, spill response
vessels are stationed in close proximity
and respond immediately. A detailed
discussion of oil spill prevention and
response for walruses can be found at
the following Web site: (https://
www.fws.gov/Contaminants/
FWS_OSCP_05/
fwscontingencyappendices/LWildlifePlans/WalrusWRP.doc).
Polar Bear
The possibility of oil and waste
product spills from Industry activities
and the subsequent impacts on polar
bears are a major concern. Polar bears
could encounter oil spills during the
open-water and ice-covered seasons in
offshore or onshore habitats. Although
the majority of the SBS polar bear
population spends much of their time
offshore on the pack ice, some bears are
likely to encounter oil regardless of the
season or location in which a spill
occurs.
Small spills of oil or waste products
throughout the year could potentially
impact small numbers of bears. The
effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or
wastes, depending on the amount of oil
or wastes involved, could be short term
or result in death. For example, in April
1988, a dead polar bear was found on
Leavitt Island, approximately 9.3 km (5
nautical miles) northeast of Oliktok
Point. The cause of death was
determined to be poisoning by a mixture
that included ethylene glycol and
Rhodamine B dye. While the bear’s
death was human-caused, the source of
the mixture was unknown.
During the ice-covered season,
mobile, non-denning bears would have
a higher probability of encountering oil
or other production wastes than
nonmobile, denning females. Current
management practices by Industry, such
as requiring the proper use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13473
minimize the potential occurrence of
such incidents. In the event of an oil
spill, it is also likely that polar bears
would be intentionally hazed to keep
them away from the area, further
reducing the likelihood of impacting the
population.
In 1980, Canadian scientists
performed experiments that studied the
effects to polar bears of exposure to oil.
Effects on experimentally oiled polar
bears (where bears were forced to
remain in oil for prolonged periods of
time) included acute inflammation of
the nasal passages, marked epidermal
responses, anemia, anorexia, and
biochemical changes indicative of
stress, renal impairment, and death.
Many effects did not become evident
until several weeks after the experiment
(Oritsland et al. 1981).
Oiling of the pelt causes significant
thermoregulatory problems by reducing
the insulation value. Irritation or
damage to the skin by oil may further
contribute to impaired
thermoregulation. Experiments on live
polar bears and pelts showed that the
thermal value of the fur decreased
significantly after oiling, and oiled bears
showed increased metabolic rates and
elevated skin temperature. Oiled bears
are also likely to ingest oil as they
groom to restore the insulation value of
the oiled fur.
Oil ingestion by polar bears through
consumption of contaminated prey, and
by grooming or nursing, could have
pathological effects, depending on the
amount of oil ingested and the
individual’s physiological state. Death
could occur if a large amount of oil were
ingested or if volatile components of oil
were aspirated into the lungs. Indeed,
two of three bears died in the Canadian
experiment, and it was suspected that
the ingestion of oil was a contributing
factor to the deaths. Experimentally
oiled bears ingested much oil through
grooming. Much of it was eliminated by
vomiting and in the feces; some was
absorbed and later found in body fluids
and tissues.
Ingestion of sublethal amounts of oil
can have various physiological effects
on a polar bear, depending on whether
the animal is able to excrete or detoxify
the hydrocarbons. Petroleum
hydrocarbons irritate or destroy
epithelial cells lining the stomach and
intestine, thereby affecting motility,
digestion, and absorption.
Polar bears swimming in, or walking
adjacent to, an oil spill could inhale
petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by
polar bears could result in damage to
various systems, such as the respiratory
and the central nervous systems,
depending on the amount of exposure.
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13474
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Oil may also affect food sources of
polar bears. Seals that die as a result of
an oil spill could be scavenged by polar
bears. This would increase exposure of
the bears to hydrocarbons and could
result in lethal impact or reduced
survival to individual bears. A local
reduction in ringed seal numbers as a
result of direct or indirect effects of oil
could temporarily affect the local
distribution of polar bears. A reduction
in density of seals as a direct result of
mortality from contact with spilled oil
could result in polar bears not using a
particular area for hunting. Possible
impacts from the loss of a food source
could reduce recruitment and/or
survival.
Spilled oil also can concentrate and
accumulate in leads and openings that
occur during spring breakup and
autumn freeze-up periods. Such a
concentration of spilled oil would
increase the chance that polar bears and
their principal prey would be oiled. To
access ringed and bearded seals, polar
bears in the SBS concentrate in shallow
waters less that 300 m deep over the
continental shelf and in areas with
greater than 50 percent ice cover
(Durner et al. 2004).
Due to their seasonal use of nearshore
habitat, the times of greatest impact
from an oil spill to polar bears are likely
the open-water and broken-ice periods
(summer and fall). This is important
because distributions of polar bears are
not uniform through time. Nearshore
and offshore polar bear densities are
greatest in fall, and polar bear use of
coastal areas during the fall open-water
period has increased in recent years in
the Beaufort Sea. This change in
distribution has been correlated with
the distance to the pack ice at that time
of year (i.e., the farther from shore the
leading edge of the pack ice is, the more
bears are observed onshore). An analysis
of data collected 2001–2005 during the
fall open-water period concluded: (1)
On average approximately 4 percent of
the estimated 1,526 polar bears in the
Southern Beaufort population were
observed onshore in the fall; (2) 80
percent of bears onshore occurred
within 15 km of subsistence-harvested
bowhead whale carcasses, where large
congregations of polar bears have been
observed feeding; and (3) sea ice
conditions affected the number of bears
on land and the duration of time they
spent there (Schliebe et al. 2006).
Hence, bears concentrated in areas
where beach-cast marine mammal
carcasses occur during the fall would
likely be more susceptible to oiling.
The persistence of toxic subsurface oil
and chronic exposures, even at
sublethal levels, can have long-term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
effects on wildlife (Peterson et al. 2003).
Although it may be true that small
numbers of bears may be affected by an
oil spill initially, the long-term impact
could be much greater. Long-term oil
effects could be substantial through
interactions between natural
environmental stressors and
compromised health of exposed
animals, and through chronic, toxic
exposure as a result of bioaccumulation.
Polar bears are biological sinks for
pollutants because they are the apical
predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are
also opportunistic scavengers of other
marine mammals. Additionally, their
diet is composed mostly of high-fat
sealskin and blubber, (Norstrom et al.
1988). The highest concentrations of
persistent organic pollutants in Arctic
marine mammals have been found in
polar bears and seal-eating walruses
near Svalbard (Norstrom et al. 1988,
Andersen et al. 2001, Muir et al. 1999).
As such, polar bears would be
susceptible to the effects of
bioaccumulation of contaminants
associated with spilled oil, which could
affect the bears’ reproduction, survival,
and immune systems. Sublethal,
chronic effects of any oil spill may
further suppress the recovery of polar
bear populations due to reduced fitness
of surviving animals.
In addition, subadult polar bears are
more vulnerable than adults to
environmental effects (Taylor et al.
1987). Subadult polar bears would be
most prone to the lethal and sublethal
effects of an oil spill due to their
proclivity for scavenging (thus
increasing their exposure to oiled
marine mammals) and their
inexperience in hunting. Because of the
greater maternal investment a weaned
subadult represents, reduced survival
rates of subadult polar bears have a
greater impact on population growth
rate and sustainable harvest than
reduced litter production rates (Taylor
et al. 1987).
To date, large oil spills from Industry
activities in the Beaufort Sea and coastal
regions that would impact polar bears
have not occurred, although the interest
in, and the development of, offshore
hydrocarbon reservoirs has increased
the potential for large offshore oil spills.
With limited background information
available regarding oil spills in the
Arctic environment, the outcome of
such a spill is uncertain. For example,
in the event of a large spill (e.g., 5,900
barrels (equal to a rupture in the
Northstar pipeline and a complete drain
of the subsea portion of the pipeline),
oil would be influenced by seasonal
weather and sea conditions including
temperature, winds, wave action, and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currents. Weather and sea conditions
also affect the type of equipment needed
for spill response and the effectiveness
of spill cleanup. Based on the
experiences of cleanup efforts following
the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where
logistical support was readily available,
spill response may be largely
unsuccessful in open-water conditions.
Indeed, spill response drills have been
unsuccessful in the cleanup of oil in
broken-ice conditions.
The major concern regarding large oil
spills is the impact a spill would have
on the survival and recruitment of the
SBS polar bear population. Currently,
this bear population is approximately
1,500 bears. In addition, the maximum
sustainable subsistence harvest is now
70 bears for this population (divided
between Canada and Alaska). The
population may be able to sustain the
additional mortality caused by a large
oil spill if a small number of bears are
killed; however, the additive effect of
numerous bear deaths due to the direct
or indirect effects from a large oil spill
are more likely to reduce population
recruitment and survival. Indirect
effects may occur through a local
reduction in seal productivity or
scavenging of oiled seal carcasses and
other potential impacts, both natural
and human-induced. The removal of a
large number of bears from the
population would exceed sustainable
levels, potentially causing a decline in
the bear population and affecting bear
productivity and subsistence use.
Evaluation of the potential impacts of
Industry waste products and oil spills
suggest that individual bears could be
impacted by the disturbances (Oritsland
et al. 1981). Depending on the amount
of oil or wastes involved and the timing
and location of a spill, impacts could be
short-term, chronic, or lethal. In order
for bear population reproduction or
survival to be impacted, a large-volume
oil spill would have to take place. The
following section analyzes the
likelihood and potential effects of such
a large-volume oil spill.
Oil Spill Risk Assessment of Potential
Impacts to Polar Bears From a Large
Oil Spill in the Beaufort Sea
Potential adverse impacts to polar
bears and Pacific walruses from oil and
waste-product spills as a result of
industrial activities in the Beaufort Sea
are a major concern. As part of the
incidental take regulatory process, the
Service evaluates potential impacts of
oil spills within the proposed regulation
area, even though the action of an oil
spill and the possible lethal outcome to
an animal are not authorized. Through
experience and current data, the Service
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
has determined that the offshore
environment is the area where its trust
species will be most vulnerable to oil
spill impacts. In this section, we assess
the risk that polar bears may be oiled
using various sources of information.
This information includes: the
description of offshore facilities;
BOEMRE oil spill risk assessment for
the Beaufort Sea; the overview of the
Risk Assessment from the previous
ITRs; and information from Servicesupported polar bear aerial coastal
surveys.
There is increasing interest in
developing offshore oil reserves in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where the
estimate of recoverable oil is up to
approximately 19 billion barrels
(BOEMRE 2010a). Development of
offshore production facilities and
pipelines increases the potential for
large offshore spills. Oil spilled from an
offshore facility or subsea pipeline is a
scenario that has been considered in
previous regulations (71 FR 43926).
With the limited background
information available regarding the
effects of large oil spills in the offshore
Arctic environment, the impact of a
large oil spill is uncertain. As far as is
known, polar bears have not been
affected by oil spilled as a result of
North Slope industrial activities to date.
As previously noted, walruses are rare
in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, they are
unlikely to encounter oil spills there,
and were not considered in this
analysis. Several factors must be
considered when developing an oil spill
risk assessment for polar bears. They
include:
1. The location of spill;
2. Magnitude of spill;
3. Oil viscosity and thickness;
4. Accessibility to spill site;
5. Spill trajectory;
6. Time of year;
7. Weather conditions (i.e., wind,
temperature, precipitation);
8. Environmental conditions (i.e.,
presence and thickness of ice);
9. Number, age, and sex of polar bears
that are (or are likely to be) affected;
10. Degree of contact;
11. Importance of affected habitat; and
12. Mitigation to limit bears from
spilled oil.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Description of Offshore Facilities
Currently, there are three offshore
Industry facilities producing oil in the
Beaufort Sea: Endicott, Northstar, and
Oooguruk. Two more, Liberty and
Nikaitchuq, are expected to commence
production during the 5-year period
analyzed for these regulations. The
Endicott oilfield is located
approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
of Prudhoe Bay. Endicott, which is
connected by a causeway to the
mainland, began production in 1986.
The Liberty field is currently under
development; the current project
concept is to use ultra-extended-reach
drilling technology to access the Liberty
reservoir from existing facilities at the
Endicott Satellite Drilling Island. The
Northstar oilfield, which is located 10
km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay, began
producing oil in 2001. Northstar oil is
transported from a gravel island in the
Beaufort Sea to shore via a 10-km (6-mi)
subsea pipeline buried in a trench in the
sea floor. Endicott and Liberty oils are
medium-weight viscous crudes with
American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravities of 24 and 27 degrees,
respectively. Northstar crude is a very
light, low-viscosity oil with an API
gravity of 42.
The Oooguruk Unit is located
adjacent to the Kuparuk River Unit in
shallow waters of Harrison Bay. Pioneer
and its partner, Eni, constructed an
offshore drill site there in 2006 on State
of Alaska leases. A subsea flow line was
also constructed to transfer produced
fluids 9.2 km (5.7 mi) from the offshore
drill site to shore. Oooguruk began
production in 2008. The Oooguruk
development has targeted two separate
reservoirs from a single offshore drill
site. The principal reservoir is the
Nuiqsut, an Upper Jurassic, inner shelf
sandstone that contains heavy to
medium oil with 19–25° American
Petroleum Institute (API) gravity. The
secondary reservoir is the Kuparuk C
sandstone, which consists of medium
viscosity oil ranging from 24–26° API
gravity. Peak oil production is
anticipated to be approximately 18,000
to 20,000 barrels of oil per day. As
described earlier, both Nikaitchuq and
Oooguruk are located in shallow water
(less than 10 feet). The offshore portion
of Nikaitchuq is located south of the
barrier islands, while Oooguruk is
located southeast of Thetis Island in the
Colville River outflow. Facilities for the
Nikaitchuq Unit are located at Oliktok
Point and at an offshore pad near Spy
Island, 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Oliktok
Point. The offshore pad is located in
shallow water 3 meters (10 feet). Oil
from the Nikaitchuq prospect is a heavy
crude from the Schrader Bluff
formation, sometimes with sand in it,
found in a shallow reservoir (less than
4,000 feet). It requires an electrical
submersible pump to produce oil.
According to the operators, the flow can
be stopped by turning off the pump. Oil
production at Nikaitchuq is anticipated
to begin in 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13475
Oil Spill Analysis
The oil-spill scenario for this analysis
considers the potential impacts from
large oil spills resulting from oil
production at the four developments
described above (Endicott and Liberty
are considered to be a complex for
analysis purposes). Estimating large oilspill occurrence and behavior is a
probability exercise. Uncertainty exists
regarding the location and size of a large
oil spill and the wind, ice, and current
conditions at the time of a spill.
Although some of the uncertainty
reflects incomplete or imperfect data, a
considerable amount of uncertainty
exists simply because it is difficult to
predict events over the next 5 years.
In order to address oil spill impacts to
polar bears from the offshore sites, we
analyzed quantitative and anecdotal
information. The quantitative
assessment of oil spill risk for the
current request for incidental take
regulations considered conditional oil
spill probabilities from four offshore
sites: Northstar, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq,
and the Endicott/Liberty prospect; oil
spill trajectory models; and a polar bear
distribution model. The analysis
included information from the Bureau
of Ocean and Enforcement (BOEMRE)
Oil spill Risk analysis in regard to polar
bears, reviewed previous risk
assessment information of polar bears in
prior ITRs, and analyzed polar bear
distribution using the Service’s coastal
survey data for 2000 to present.
BOEMRE Oil Spill Risk Assessment
Because it provides the most current
and rigorous treatment of potential oil
spills in the Beaufort Sea, our analysis
of potential oil spill impacts draws
upon the BOEMRE’s most recent Oil
Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) (MMS
2008a) to help elucidate potential
impacts of an oil spill to polar bears.
The OSRA is a computer model that
analyzes how and where large offshore
spills will likely move (Smith et al.
1982). To estimate the likely trajectory
potential oil spills may follow, the
OSRA model uses information about the
physical environment, including data
on wind, sea ice, and currents. Although
the OSRA estimates that the statistical
mean number of large spills is less than
one over the life of most developments
in the Beaufort Sea, for purposes of this
analysis we assume one large spill
occurs and then analyze its effects.
Large Spill Size and Source
Assumptions
As stated in Appendix A of the Arctic
Multi-sale DEIS (MMS 2008b), large
spills are those spills of 1,000 barrels
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13476
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(bbl) or more and would persist on the
water long enough to follow in a
trajectory analysis. Spills smaller than
1,000 bbl would not be expected to
persist on the water long enough to
warrant a trajectory analysis. Because no
large spills have occurred on the Alaska
OCS to date from oil and gas activities,
the large spill-size assumptions used by
BOEMRE are based on the reported
spills from oil production in the Gulf of
Mexico and Pacific OCS regions.
BOEMRE uses the median spill size in
the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS
from 1985 through 1999 as the likely
large spill size for analysis purposes.
The median size of a crude oil spill
greater than or equal to 1,000 bbl from
a pipeline from 1985 through 1999 on
the U.S. OCS was 4,600 bbl, and the
average was 6,700 bbl (Anderson and
LaBelle 2000). The median spill size for
a platform on the OCS over the entire
record 1964–1999, based on analysis, is
1,500 bbl, and the average is 3,300 bbl
(Anderson and LaBelle 2000). For
purposes of analysis, we use the median
spill size estimates from BOEMRE as the
likely large spill size from platforms and
pipelines.
Our analysis is predicated on the
BOEMRE assumption that large spills
would occur only during development
and production in the Arctic (MMS
2008a). BOEMRE still considers
assumptions from the DEIS of the
Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning
Areas to be valid despite the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill event in the summer of
2010. Currently, BOEMRE is working on
a new large spill projection for the
Arctic OCS in regard to new information
gleaned from the Deepwater Horizon
event. However, considering the low
number of exploratory wells that have
occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS (31
wells since 1982 [BOEMRE 2010b]) and
the low rate of exploratory drilling
blowouts per well drilled, it is
reasonable to conclude that the risk of
a large spill occurring during
exploration of the Arctic OCS is very
small. In addition, it is important to
note that Industry does not plan to
conduct drilling operations at more than
three exploration sites in the Beaufort
Sea OCS for the duration of the 5-year
regulatory period.
Between 1971 and 2007, OCS
operators have produced almost 15
billion barrels (Bbbl) of oil in the United
States. During this period, there were
2,645 spills that totaled approximately
164,100 barrels spilled (equal to 0.001
percent of barrels produced), or about 1
bbl spilled for every 91,400 bbl
produced. Between 1993 and 2007, the
most recent 15-year period analyzed,
almost 7.5 Bbbl of oil were produced.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
During this period, there were 651 spills
that totaled approximately 47,800 bbl
spilled (equal to 0.0006 percent of
barrels produced), or approximately 1
bbl spilled for every 156,900 bbl
produced.
Within the duration of the previous
ITRs, two large onshore terrestrial oil
spills occurred as a result of failures in
the oil production transport system. In
the spring of 2006, an oil spill of
approximately 260,000 gallons occurred
near an oil gathering center facility from
a corroded pipeline operated by BP
Exploration (Alaska). The spill impacted
approximately 2 acres (8 square meters).
In November 2009, a 48,000-gallon spill
from a ‘‘common line’’ carrying oil,
water, and natural gas operated by BP
occurred as well, impacting
approximately 8,400 square feet (780
square meters). Neither spill appeared to
impact polar bears, in part due to the
locations: Both sites were within or near
industrial facilities not frequented by
bears; and timing: Polar bears are not
typically observed in the affected areas
during the time of the spills and
subsequent cleanup.
considered BOEMRE conditional
probabilities out to 60 days for an open
water (July–September) spill. We
assume that a spill could last longer as
a coherent slick if it became entrained
in the ice and melts out in the spring.
Therefore, we assume that winter spills
(October–June) could last up to 180 days
as a coherent slick.
We used the BOEMRE maps of launch
areas (LAs) and pipeline segments (PLs)
from Appendix A of the Arctic Multisale DEIS (Map A.1–4) to represent the
location of oil spills originating from the
four OCS developments described
previously. Specifically, we assigned LA
08 and PL 10 to Oooguruk, LA 10 and
PL 10 to Nikaitchuq, LA 12 and PL 11
to Northstar, and LA 12 and PL 12 to
Endicott/Liberty. Conditional
probabilities for contact from spills from
LAs and PLs should be considered
slightly higher for Oooguruk and
Nikaitchuq because the hypothetical
pipelines used by BOEMRE in their
OSRA model are much longer than
actual existing offshore pipelines in the
Beaufort Sea (i.e., the model pipelines
extend beyond the barrier islands).
Trajectory Estimates of a Large
Offshore Oil Spill
Although it is reasonable to assume
that the chance of one or more large
spills occurring during the period of
these regulations on the Alaskan OCS
from production activities is low, for
analysis purposes, we assume that a
large spill does occur in order to
evaluate potential impacts to polar
bears. The BOEMRE OSRA model
analyzes the likely paths of over two
million simulated oil spills in relation
to biological, physical, and sociocultural
resource areas specific to the Beaufort
Sea, which are generically called
environmental resource areas (ERAs).
The chance that a large oil spill will
contact a specific ERA of concern
within a given time of travel from a
certain location (launch area or pipeline
segment) is termed a conditional
probability. We used the BOEMRE
OSRA analysis from the Arctic Multisale DEIS to estimate the conditional
probabilities of a large spill contacting
sensitive ERAs pertinent to polar bears.
Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model
Assumptions
Oil-Spill Persistence
How long an oil spill persists on
water or on the shoreline can vary,
depending upon the size of the oil spill,
the environmental conditions at the
time of the spill, and the substrate of the
shoreline. In its oil spill analysis,
BOEMRE conservatively assumes 1,500and 4,600-bbl spills could last up to 30
days on the water as a coherent slick. To
be even more conservative, we
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For purposes of this oil spill trajectory
simulation, BOEMRE made the
following assumptions:
• All spills occur instantaneously;
• Large oil spills occur in the
hypothetical launch areas or along the
hypothetical pipeline segments noted
above;
• Large spills do not weather for
purposes of OSRA analysis;
• The model does not simulate
cleanup scenarios. The oil spill
trajectories move as though no oil spill
response action is taken; and
• Large oil spills stop when they
contact the mainland coastline.
Analysis of the Oil-Spill-Trajectory
Model
As noted above, the chance that a
large oil spill will contact a specific
ERA of concern within a given time of
travel from a certain location (LA or PL)
is termed a conditional probability.
From the DEIS, Appendix A, we chose
ERAs and Land Segments (LSs) to
represent areas of concern pertinent to
polar bears (MMS 2008a). Those ERAs
and LSs, and the conditional
probabilities that an oil spill originating
from one of the four existing OCS
developments would contact them, are
presented in Table 1. From Table 1 we
were able to estimate the highest
probability and the range of
probabilities that could occur should a
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
13477
BILLING CODE 3410–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
EP11MR11.000
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
spill contact the selected land segments
from launch areas or pipeline segments.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13478
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Polar bears are most vulnerable to an
oil spill during the open water period
when bears aggregate on shore. In the
Beaufort Sea these aggregations often
form in the fall near subsistenceharvested bowhead whale carcasses.
Specific aggregation areas include Point
Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik. In
recent years, more than 60 polar bears
have been observed feeding on whale
carcasses just outside of Kaktovik, and
in the autumn of 2002, NSB and Service
biologists documented more than 100
polar bears in and around Barrow. In
order for significant impacts on polar
bears to occur, an oil spill would have
to contact an aggregation of polar bears.
We believe the probability of this
occurring is low. For example, in the
unlikely event of an oil spill, the
probability of it contacting a polar bear
aggregation in resource areas or land
segments (ERA 55, 93, 95, 96, 100; LS
85, 107) is 13 percent or less (Table 1).
The greatest probability would be oil
spilled from Northstar or Endicott/
Liberty Launch Areas contacting ERA 96
(Midway, Cross, and Bartlett islands).
Some polar bears will aggregate at these
sites during a 3-month portion of the
year (August–October). If an oil spill
occurred and contacted those
aggregation sites outside of that
timeframe of use by polar bears,
potential impacts to polar bears would
be minimized.
Coastal areas provide important
denning habitat for polar bears, such as
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) and nearshore barrier islands
exhibiting relief (containing tundra
habitat) (Amstrup 1993, Amstrup and
Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2006,
USFWS unpubl. data). Considering that
65 percent of confirmed terrestrial dens
found in Alaska from 1981 through 2005
were on coastal or island bluffs (Durner
et al. 2006), oiling of such habitats could
have a negative impact on polar bears,
although specific nature and
ramifications of such effects are
unknown.
If an oil spill does occur, tundra relief
barrier islands (ERA 92, 93, and 94, LS
97 and 102) would have up to a 12
percent conditional probability of spill
contact (range: Less than 1 percent to 12
percent) from either Northstar or the
Endicott/Liberty complex (Table 1). The
highest conditional probability of a spill
contacting the coastline of the ANWR
(LS 138) would be 11 percent. The
Kaktovik area (ERA 95 and 100, LS 107)
has up to a 5 percent chance of spill
contact, assuming spills occur during
the summer season and contact the
coastline within 60 days. The chance of
a spill contacting the coast near Barrow
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
(ERA 55, LS 85) would be as high as 5
percent (Table 1).
All barrier islands are important
resting and travel corridors for polar
bears, larger barrier islands that contain
tundra relief are also important denning
habitat. Tundra-bearing barrier islands
within the geographic region and near
oil field development are the Jones
Island group of Pingok, Bertoncini,
Bodfish, Cottle, Howe, Foggy, Tigvariak,
and Flaxman islands. In addition, Cross
Island has gravel relief and polar bears
have previously denned on it. The Jones
Island group is located in ERA 92 and
LS 97. If a spill were to originate from
Oooguruk during the summer months,
the probability that this spill would
contact these land segments could be as
great as 8 percent from a pipeline
segment. The probability that a spill
from Nikaitchuq would contact the
Jones Island group would range from 1
percent to as high as 11 percent.
Likewise, for Northstar and the
Endicott/Liberty complex, the range
would be from 4 percent to as high as
12 percent and from 3 percent to as high
as 12 percent, respectively.
Risk Assessment From Prior Incidental
Take Regulations (ITRs)
In previous ITRs, we used a risk
assessment method that considered oil
spill probability estimates for two sites
(Northstar and Liberty), oil spill
trajectory models, and a polar bear
distribution model based on location of
satellite-collared females during
September and October. To support the
analysis for this proposed action, we
reviewed the previous analysis and used
the data to compare the potential effects
of an oil spill in a nearshore production
facility (less than 5 miles), such as
Liberty, and a facility located further
offshore, such as Northstar (greater than
5 miles). Although Liberty was
originally designed as an offshore
production island, it is currently being
developed as an onshore production
facility (connected to the mainland by a
causeway) using ultra-extended reach
technology to drill directionally into the
oil prospect. Even though the risk
assessment of 2006 did not specifically
model spills from the Oooguruk or
Nikaitchuq sites, we believed it was
reasonable to assume that the analysis
for Liberty, and indirectly Northstar,
adequately reflected the potential
impacts likely to occur from an oil spill
at either of these additional locations
due to the similarity in the nearshore
locations.
Methodology of Prior Risk Assessment
The first step in the risk assessment
analysis was to examine oil spill
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
probabilities at offshore production sites
for the summer (July–October) and
winter (November–June) seasons based
on information presented in the original
Northstar and Liberty EIS. We assumed
that one spill occurred during the 5-year
period covered by the regulations. A
detailed description of the methodology
can be found at 71 FR 43926 (August 2,
2006). The second step in the risk
assessment was to estimate the number
of polar bears that could be impacted by
a spill. If a bear contacted oil, it was
assumed to be a lethal contact. This
involved estimating the distribution of
bears that could be in the area and
overlapping polar bear distributions and
seasonal aggregations with oil spill
trajectories. The trajectories previously
calculated for Northstar and Liberty
sites were used, as well as BOEMRE
estimates of where oil spills from other
production facilities were likely to go.
The trajectories for Northstar and
Liberty were provided by the BOEMRE
and reported in Amstrup et al. (2006).
BOEMRE estimated probable sizes of oil
spills from the transportation pipeline
and production platforms. These spill
sizes ranged from a minimum of 125 to
a catastrophic release event of 5,912
barrels. Hence, researchers set the size
of the modeled spill at the worst-case
scenario of 5,912 barrels, simulating
rupture and drainage of a pipeline.
The second component incorporated
polar bear densities overlapped with the
oil spill trajectories. To accomplish this,
in 2004, USGS completed analysis
investigating the potential effects of
hypothetical oil spills on polar bears.
Movement and distribution information
was derived from radio and satellite
relocations of collared adult females.
Density estimates were used to
determine the distribution of polar bears
in the Beaufort Sea. Researchers then
created a grid system centered over the
Northstar production island and the
Liberty site to estimate the number of
bears expected to occur within each 1
km2 grid cell. Each of the simulated oil
spills were overlaid with the polar bear
distribution grid. Finally, the likelihood
of occurrence of bears oiled during the
duration of the 5-year incidental take
regulations was estimated. This was
calculated by multiplying the number of
polar bears oiled by the spill by the
percentage of time bears were at risk for
each period of the year, and summing
these probabilities.
In summary, the maximum numbers
of bears potentially oiled by a 5,912barrel spill during September open
water seasons from Northstar was 27,
and the maximum from Liberty was 23.
Potentially oiled bears ranged up to 74
polar bears and up to 55 polar bears in
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
October mixed-ice conditions for
Northstar and Liberty, respectively.
Median number of bears oiled by the
5,912-barrel spill in September and
October were 3 and 11 bears from
Northstar simulation site, respectively.
Median numbers of bears oiled for
September and October for the Liberty
simulation site were 1 and 3 bears,
respectively. Variation occurred among
oil spill scenarios and was the result of
differences in oil spill trajectories
among those scenarios and not the
result of variation in the estimated bear
densities. For example, in October, 75
percent of trajectories from the 5,912barrel spilled oil affected 20 or fewer
polar bears from spills originating at the
Northstar simulation site and 9 or fewer
bears from spills originating at the
Liberty simulation site.
When calculating the probability that
a spill would oil 5 or more bears during
the annual fall period, we found that oil
spills and trajectories were more likely
to affect small numbers of bears (less
than 5 bears) than larger numbers of
bears. Thus, for Northstar, the
probability of spilled oil that affected
(resulting in mortality) 5 or more bears
is 1.0–3.4 percent; for 10 or more bears
is 0.7–2.3 percent; and for 20 or more
bears is 0.2–0.8 percent. For Liberty, the
probability of a spill that will cause a
mortality of 5 or more bears was 0.3–7.4
percent; for 10 or more bears, 0.1–0.4
percent; and for 20 or more bears, 0.1–
0.2 percent.
Discussion of Prior Risk Assessment
Location of Industry sites within the
marine environment is important when
analyzing the potential for polar bears to
contact an oil spill. Simulations from
the prior risk assessment suggested that
bears have a higher probability of being
oiled from facilities located further
offshore, such as Northstar. Northstar
Island is nearer the active ice flaw zone
and in deeper water than Endicott/
Liberty, Oooguruk, and Nikaitchuq.
Furthermore, it is not sheltered from
deep water by barrier islands. These
characteristics associated with Industry
developments located further offshore
would potentially attract more polar
bears into close proximity with the
island and would also allow oil to
spread more effectively and more
consistently into surrounding areas. By
comparison through the model, the
land-fast ice inside the shelter of the
islands appeared to dramatically restrict
the extent of most oil spills in
comparison to Northstar, which lies
outside the barrier islands and in deeper
water. From the standpoint of polar
bears and based on the simulations, a
nearshore island production site (less
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
than 5 miles) would potentially involve
less risk to being oiled than a facility
located further offshore, such as
Northstar Island. Shell may develop an
offshore site (Suvulliq) in the active
flaw zone during the period of the
proposed action. If developed, future
scenarios for this prospect will be
similar to Northstar and would
influence polar bears in a similar
manner.
Discussion of Polar Bear Aerial Coastal
Surveys for Current Analysis
The Service has an ongoing project to
monitor polar bear distribution and
numbers along the Beaufort Sea
coastline during the fall season. These
aerial surveys were conducted between
2000 to 2009. From 2000 to 2005, the
Service investigated the relationship
between sea ice conditions, food
availability, and the fall distribution of
polar bears in terrestrial habitats of the
SBS via weekly aerial surveys. Aerial
surveys were conducted weekly during
September and October along the SBS
coastline and barrier islands between
Barrow and the Canadian border to
determine polar bear density during the
peak use of terrestrial habitat by bears.
The Service observed that the number of
bears on land increased when sea-ice
retreated farthest from the shore. The
distribution of bears also appeared to be
related to the availability of subsistenceharvested bowhead whale carcasses and
the density of ringed seals in offshore
waters.
Between 2000 and 2005, the
maximum density estimate of bears
observed during any single survey was
8.6 bears/100 km or 122 bears total.
Across all years (2000 to 2005) and
survey dates between mid-September
and the end of October, an average of 4
bears/100 km (57 bears total) were
observed. The Service estimated that a
maximum of 8.0 percent and an average
of 3.7 percent of the estimated 1,526
bears in the SBS population were
observed on land during the late openwater and broken-ice period. This
period coincides with increased
aggregations of bears in the nearshore at
feeding sites and the peak observation
period (August through October) of
bears observed from Industry as
reported through their bear monitoring
programs. This would be the period
posing the greatest risk to the largest
number of bears from an oil spill.
The number of bears observed per
kilometer of survey flown was higher
between Cape Halkett and Jago Spit (4
bears/100 km) than the area surveyed
between Barrow and the Canadian
border (3 bears/100 km) during the
2003–2005 surveys. The Service
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13479
reported that this difference was largely
driven by a major concentration of bears
(69 percent of total bears onshore) at
Barter Island (17.0 polar bears/100 km).
In addition, annual surveys were also
conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The
number of bears observed during weekly
surveys ranged between 2 to 51, 2 to 78,
and 7 to 75, respectively. The highest
concentrations continued to be in the
area of Barter Island and the community
of Kaktovik. Using the above
information, if a spill occurred during
the fall open-water or broken-ice period,
up to 8 percent of the SBS population
could potentially contact oil.
Conclusion of Risk Assessment
In summary, documented oil spillrelated impacts in the marine
environment to polar bears to date in
the Beaufort Sea by the oil and gas
Industry are minimal. To date, no large
spills in the marine environment have
occurred in Arctic Alaska. Nevertheless,
the possibility of oil spills from Industry
activities and the subsequent impacts on
polar bears that contact oil remain a
major concern.
With the limited background
information available regarding oil
spills in the Arctic environment, it is
unknown what the outcome of such a
spill would be if one were to occur.
Polar bears could encounter oil spills
during the open-water and ice-covered
seasons in offshore or onshore habitat.
Although the majority of the SBS polar
bear population spends a large amount
of their time offshore on the pack ice, it
is likely that some bears would
encounter oil from a spill regardless of
the season and location.
Although the extent of oil spill
impacts would depend on the size,
location, and timing of spills relative to
polar bear distributions and on the
effectiveness of spill response and
cleanup efforts, under some scenarios,
population-level impacts could be
expected. A large spill could have
significant impacts on polar bears if an
oil spill contacted an aggregation of
polar bears, which generally occur in
discrete areas in the terrestrial
environment. A spill occurring during
the broken-ice period could
significantly impact the SBS polar bear
population, in part because effective
techniques for containing, recovering,
and cleaning up oil spills in Arctic
marine environments, particularly
during poor weather and broken-ice
conditions has not been proven;
however, deterrence of polar bears away
from areas affected by an oil spill could
help minimize the impact of a spill to
the SBS population. In the event that an
offshore oil spill contacted numerous
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13480
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
bears, a potentially significant impact to
the SBS population could result,
initially to the percentage of the
population directly contacted by oil.
This effect would be magnified in and
around areas of polar bear aggregations.
Bears would also be affected indirectly
either by food contamination or by
chronic lasting effects caused by
exposure to oil. During the 5 year period
of these regulations, however, the
chance of a large spill occurring is
extremely low.
While there is uncertainty in the
analysis, certain vectors have to align
for polar bears to be impacted by an oil
spill in the marine environment. First,
a spill has to occur. Second, the spill
has to contact areas where bears may be
located. BOEMRE’s most recent Oil
Spill Risk Analysis suggests that if a
large oil spill does occur, there is as
much as a 13 percent conditional
probability that oil from the five
analyzed sites would contact Cross
Island (ERA 96) (from simulated spills
originating either at Northstar or the
Endicott/Liberty complex), and as much
as an 11 percent conditional probability
that it would contact Barter Island and/
or the coast of the ANWR (ERA 95 and
100, LS 107 and 138) (from simulated
spills originating at the Endicott/Liberty
complex). Similarly, there is as much as
a 5 percent chance that an oil spill
would contact the coast near Barrow
(ERA 55, LS 85) (from simulated spills
originating at Oooguruk). Third, polar
bears will have to be seasonally
distributed within the affected region to
be impacted by oil. Data from the polar
bear coastal surveys suggested that,
while polar bears are not uniformly
distributed, an average of 3.7 percent
with maximum of 8 percent (sample
size of 122 bears) of the estimated 1,526
bears in the SBS population were
distributed along the Beaufort Sea
coastline between the Alaska/Canada
border and Barrow.
As a result of the information
considered here, the Service concludes
that the probability of an offshore spill
from Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, Northstar,
or Endicott/Liberty is low. Moreover, in
the unlikely event of a spill, the
probability that spills would contact
areas, or habitat important to bears
appears low. Third, while individual
bears could be affected by a spill, the
potential for a population-level effect
would be minimal unless the spill
contacted an aggregation of bears.
Known aggregations tend to be seasonal
during the late open-water and brokenice season, further minimizing the
potential of a spill to impact bears.
Therefore, we conclude that only small
numbers of polar bears are likely to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
affected by a large oil spill in the Arctic
waters with only a negligible impact to
the SBS population.
Documented Impacts of the Oil and Gas
Industry on Pacific Walruses and Polar
Bears
In order to document potential
impacts to polar bears and walruses, we
analyzed potential effects that could
have more than a negligible impact to
both species. The effects analyzed
included the loss or preclusion of
habitat, lethal take, harassment, and oil
spills.
Pacific Walrus
During the history of the incidental
take regulations, the actual impacts from
Industry activities on Pacific walruses,
documented through monitoring, were
minimal. From 1994 to 2004, Industry
recorded nine sightings, involving a
total of ten Pacific walruses, during the
open-water season. From 2005 to 2009,
an additional eight individual walruses
were observed during Industry
operations in the Beaufort Sea. In most
cases, walruses appeared undisturbed
by human interactions; however, three
sightings during the early 2000s
involved potential disturbance to the
walruses. Two of three sightings
involved walruses hauling out on the
armor of Northstar Island and one
sighting occurred at the SDC on the
McCovey prospect, where the walruses
reacted to helicopter noise. With the
additional sightings in the Beaufort Sea,
walruses were observed during
exploration (eight sightings; five during
recent aerial surveys; 2009),
development (three sightings), and
production (six sightings) activities.
There is no evidence that there were any
physical effects or impacts to these
individual walruses based on the
interaction with Industry. We know of
no other interactions that occurred
between walrus and Industry during the
duration of the incidental take program.
Furthermore, there have been no other
documented impacts to walruses from
Industry.
Cumulative Impacts
Pacific walruses do not normally
range into the Beaufort Sea, and
documented interactions between oil
and gas activities and walruses have
been minimal. The proposed Industry
activities identified by the petitioners
are likely to result in some incremental
cumulative effects to the small number
of walruses exposed to these activities
through the potential exclusion or
avoidance of walruses from resting areas
and disruption of associated biological
behaviors. However, based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habitat use patterns of walruses and
their close association with seasonal
pack ice, relatively small numbers of
walruses are likely to be encountered
during the open-water season when
proposed marine activities are expected
to occur. Required monitoring and
mitigation measures designed to
minimize interactions between
authorized projects and concentrations
of resting or feeding walruses are also
expected to limit the severity of any
behavioral responses. As a population,
hunting pressure, climate change, and
the expansion of commercial activities
into walrus habitat all have potential to
impact walruses. Combined, these
factors are expected to present
significant challenges to future walrus
conservation and management efforts.
Therefore, we conclude that the
proposed exploration activities,
especially as mitigated through the
regulatory process, are not at this time
expected to add significantly to the
cumulative impacts on the Pacific
walrus population from past, present,
and future activities that are reasonably
likely to occur within the 5-year period
covered by the regulations, if adopted.
Polar Bear
Documented impacts on polar bears
by the oil and gas Industry during the
past 40 years appear to be minimal.
Historically, polar bears spend a limited
amount of time on land, coming ashore
to feed, den, or move to other areas.
With the changing of their distribution
based on the changing ice environment,
the Service anticipates that bears will
remain on land longer. At times, fall
storms deposit bears along the coastline
where the bears remain until the ice
returns. For this reason, polar bears
have mainly been encountered at or
near most coastal and offshore
production facilities, or along the roads
and causeways that link these facilities
to the mainland. During those periods,
the likelihood of interactions between
polar bears and Industry activities
increases. We have found that the polar
bear interaction planning and training
requirements set forth in these
regulations and required through the
LOA process have increased polar bear
awareness and minimized the number
of these encounters. LOA requirements
have also increased our knowledge of
polar bear activity in the developed
areas.
No known lethal take associated with
Industry has occurred during the period
covered by incidental take regulations.
Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal
takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968,
there have been two documented cases
of lethal take of polar bears associated
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
with oil and gas activities. In both
instances, the lethal take was reported
to be in defense of human life. In winter
1968–1969, an Industry employee shot
and killed a polar bear. In 1990, a
female polar bear was killed at a drill
site on the west side of Camden Bay. In
contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in
the Canadian Northwest Territories from
1976 to 1986 due to encounters with
Industry. Since the beginning of the
incidental take program, which includes
measures that minimize impacts to the
species, no polar bears have been killed
due to encounters associated with
current Industry activities on the North
Slope. For this reason, Industry has
requested that these regulations cover
only nonlethal, incidental take.
To date, most impacts to polar bears
from industry operations have been the
result of direct bear-human encounters,
some of which have led to deterrence
events. Monitoring efforts by Industry
required under previous regulations for
the incidental take of polar bears
documented various types of
interactions between polar bears and
Industry. Between 2006 to 2009, a total
of 73 LOAs have been issued to
Industry, with an average of 18 LOAs
annually. Not all Industry activities
observe or interact with polar bears.
Polar bear observations were recorded
for 56 percent of the LOAs (41 of 73
LOAs).
From 2006 through 2009, an average
of 306 polar bears was observed and
reported per year. (range: 170 to 420
bears annually). During 2007, 7
companies observed 321 polar bears
from 177 sightings. In 2008, 10
companies observed 313 polar bears
from 186 sightings. In 2009, 420 polar
bears were observed during 245
sightings. In all 3 years, the highest
number of bears observed was recorded
in the fall season in August and
September. In 2007, the highest number
of bears was recorded in August, where
90 sightings totaling 148 bears were
observed; in 2008, 87 sightings totaling
162 bears were recorded in August;
while in 2009, 77 bear sightings were
reported. Sightings of polar bears have
increased from previous regulatory time
periods due to a combination of
variables. The high number of bear
sightings for these years was most likely
the result of an increased number of
bears using the terrestrial habitat as a
result of changes in sea ice habitat,
multiple marine-based projects
occurring near barrier islands (where
multiple sightings were reported), as
well as increased compliance and
monitoring of Industry projects,
especially during August and
September, where some repeat sightings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
of individual bears and family groups
occurred. This trend in observations is
consistent with the hypothesis of
increasing use of coastal habitats by
polar bears during the summer months.
Industry activities that occur on or
near the Beaufort Sea coast continue to
have the greatest potential for
encountering polar bears rather than
Industry activities occurring inland.
According to AOGA figures, the offshore
facilities of Endicott, Liberty, Northstar,
and Oooguruk accounted for 47 percent
of all bear observations between 2005
and 2008 (182 of 390 sightings).
Intentional take of polar bears
(through separate Service authorizations
under sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h), and
112(c) of the MMPA) occurs on the
North Slope as well. It is used as a
mitigation measure to allow citizens
conducting activities in polar bear
habitat to take polar bears by
harassment (nonlethal deterrence
activities) for the protection of both
human life and polar bears. The Service
provides guidance and training as to the
appropriate harassment response
necessary for polar bears. The largest
operator on the North Slope, BPXA, has
documented an increase in the total
number of bear observations for their oil
units since 2006 (39, 62, 96, and 205
bears for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2009, respectively). However, the
percentage of Level B deterrence events
reported by BPXA has decreased from
64 percent in 2006 to 21 percent in 2009
of total observations. BPXA attributes
this decrease to an increase in polar bear
awareness and deterrence training of
personnel. A similar trend appears in
the slope-wide data presented by
AOGA, which encapsulates multiple
operators. The percentage of Level B
deterrence events appeared to have
decreased from 39 percent of all
reported polar bear sightings in 2005 to
23 percent in 2008. We currently have
no indication that these encounters,
which alter the behavior and movement
of individual bears, have an effect on
survival and recruitment in the SBS
polar bear population.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of oil and gas
activities are assessed, in part, through
the information we gain in monitoring
reports, which are required for each
operator under the authorizations.
Incidental take regulations have been in
place in the Arctic oil and gas fields for
the past 17 years.
Information from these reports
provides a history of past effects on
polar bears from interactions with oil
and gas activities, including intentional
take. Information on previous levels of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13481
impact are used to evaluate future
impacts from existing and proposed
Industry activities and facilities. In
addition, information used in our
cumulative effects assessment includes:
polar bear research leading to
publications and data, such as polar
bear population assessments by USGS;
information from legislative actions,
including the listing of the polar bear as
a threatened species under the ESA in
2008; traditional knowledge of polar
bear habitat use; anecdotal observations;
and professional judgment.
While the number of LOAs being
requested does not represent the
potential for direct impact to polar
bears, they do offer an index as to the
effort and type of Industry work that is
currently being conducted. LOA trend
data also helps the Service track
progress on various projects as they
move through the stages of oil field
development. An increase in slope-wide
projects has the ability to expose more
people to the Arctic and increase bearhuman interactions.
The Polar Bear Status Review
describes cumulative effects of oil and
gas development on polar bears in
Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of the
status review). This document can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov;
search for Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–
2010–0098. In addition, in 2003 the
National Research Council published a
description of the cumulative effects
that oil and gas development would
have on polar bears and seals in Alaska.
They concluded the following:
(1) ‘‘Industrial activity in the marine
waters of the Beaufort Sea has been
limited and sporadic and likely has not
caused serious cumulative effects to
ringed seals or polar bears.’’
(2) ‘‘Careful mitigation can help to
reduce the effects of oil and gas
development and their accumulation,
especially if there is no major oil spill.
However, the effects of full-scale
industrial development off the North
Slope would accumulate through the
displacement of polar bears and ringed
seals from their habitats, increased
mortality, and decreased reproductive
success.’’
(3) ‘‘A major Beaufort Sea oil spill
would have major effects on polar bears
and ringed seals.’’
(4) ‘‘Climatic warming at predicted
rates in the Beaufort and Chukchi sea
regions is likely to have serious
consequences for ringed seals and polar
bears, and those effects will accumulate
with the effects of oil and gas activities
in the region.’’
(5) ‘‘Unless studies to address the
potential accumulation of effects on
North Slope polar bears or ringed seals
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13482
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
are designed, funded, and conducted
over long periods of time, it will be
impossible to verify whether such
effects occur, to measure them, or to
explain their causes.’’
A detailed description of climate
change and its potential effects on polar
bears, prepared by the Service, can be
found in the ‘‘Polar Bear Status Review’’
(pages 72 to 108) at: https://
www.regulations.gov; search for Docket
No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098.
Additional detailed information by the
USGS regarding the status of the SBS
stock in relation to climate change,
projections of habitat and populations,
and forecasts of rangewide status can be
found at: https://www.usgs.gov/
newsroom/special/polar_bears/. Climate
change could alter polar bear habitat
because seasonal changes, such as
extended duration of open water, may
preclude sea ice habitat and restrict
some bears to coastal areas. Biological
effects on the worldwide population of
polar bears are expected to include
increased movements, changes in bear
distributions, changes to the access and
allocation of denning areas, and
increased energy expenditure from open
water swimming, and possible
decreased fitness. Demographic effects
that may occur due to climate change
include changes in prey availability to
polar bears, a potential reduction in the
access to prey, and changes in seal
productivity.
The Service anticipates negligible
effects on polar bears due to Industry
activity, even though there may be an
increased use of terrestrial habitat in the
fall period by polar bears on the coast
of Alaska and an increased use of
terrestrial habitat by denning bears in
the same area. Polar bears are not
residents of the oil fields, but use the
habitat in a transitory nature, which
limits potential impacts from Industry.
Furthermore, no known Level A
harassment or lethal takes on polar
bears have occurred throughout the
duration of the incidental take program,
which was initiated in 1994. The last
known Industry-caused death of a bear
by Industry occurred in 1990. This
documented information suggests that
Industry will have no more than a
negligible effect on polar bears for the 5year regulatory period even though
there may be more bears onshore. The
Service also believes that current and
proposed mitigation measures will be
effective in minimizing any additional
effects attributed to seasonal shifts in
distributions of the increased use by
bears of terrestrial habitats and denning
polar bears during the 5-year timeframe
of the regulations as has occurred in the
past. It is likely that, due to potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
seasonal changes in abundance and
distribution of polar bears during the
fall, more frequent encounters may
occur and that Industry may have to
implement mitigation measures more
often, for example, increasing polar bear
deterrence events. In addition, if
additional polar bear den locations are
detected within industrial activity areas,
spatial and temporal mitigation
measures, including cessation of
activities, may be instituted more
frequently during the 5-year period of
the rule.
The proposed activities identified by
Industry are likely to result in
incremental cumulative effects to polar
bears during the 5-year regulatory
period. Based on Industry monitoring
information, for example, deflection
from travel routes along the coast
appears to be a common occurrence,
where bears move around coastal
facilities rather than traveling through
them. Incremental cumulative effects
could also occur through the potential
exclusion or temporary avoidance of
polar bears from feeding, resting, or
denning areas and disruption of
associated biological behaviors.
However, based on monitoring results
acquired from past ITRs, the level of
cumulative effects, including those of
climate change, during the 5-year
regulatory period would result in
negligible effects on the bear
population.
Monitoring results from Industry,
analyzed by the Service, indicate that
little to no short-term impacts on polar
bears have resulted from oil and gas
activities. We evaluated both subtle and
acute impacts likely to occur from
industrial activity and we determined
that all direct and indirect effects,
including cumulative effects, of
industrial activities have not adversely
affected the species through effects on
rates of recruitment or survival. Based
on past monitoring reports, the level of
interaction between Industry and polar
bears has been minimal. Additional
information, such as subsistence harvest
levels and incidental observations of
polar bears near shore, provide evidence
that these populations have not been
adversely affected. For the next 5 years,
we anticipate the level of oil and gas
Industry interactions with polar bears
will likely increase in response to more
bears on shore and more activity along
the coast, however we do not anticipate
significant impacts on bears to occur.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific
Walruses and Polar Bears
Small Numbers Determination
As discussed in the ‘‘Biological
Information’’ section, the dynamic
nature of sea ice habitat influences the
seasonal and annual distribution and
abundance of polar bears and walruses
in the specified geographical region.
The following analysis concludes that
only small numbers of Pacific walruses
and polar bears are likely to be taken
incidental to the described Industry
activities relative to the number of
walruses and polar bears that are
expected to be unaffected by those
activities. This conclusion is based
upon known distribution patterns and
habitat use of Pacific walruses and polar
bears.
1. The number of polar bears and
walruses utilizing the described
geographic region during Industry
operations is expected to be small
relative to the number of animals in the
respective populations utilizing pack ice
habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi
seas for polar bears or the Chukchi and
Bering seas habitats for the Pacific
walrus. As stated before, the Pacific
walrus is extralimital in the Beaufort
Sea, since the majority of the walrus
population is found exclusively in the
Chukchi and Bering seas. There is no
expectation that even discrete
movements, such as foraging, by some
individual walruses into the Beaufort
Sea as a result of climate change will
increase the number of walruses
observed by Industry during the
regulatory period.
Polar bears are expected to remain
closely associated with either the sea ice
or coastal zones throughout the year on
the North Slope of Alaska. As a result
of coastal surveys, the Service estimates
a maximum of 8.0 percent and an
average of 3.7 percent of the estimated
1,526 bears in the SBS population have
been observed on land during the late
open-water and broken-ice period. This
period coincides with the peak period
(August through October) of bears
observed from Industry as reported
through their bear monitoring programs.
If not all bears were counted, this
suggests that at the peak of terrestrial
habitat use in early fall prior to freezeup, up to 10 percent of the SBS polar
bear population can be found near the
coastal environments, while 90 percent
of the bears continue to be associated
with the existing pack ice.
2. Within the specified geographical
region, the footprint of authorized
projects is expected to be small relative
to the range of polar bear and walrus in
the region. Again, the fact that the
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Pacific walrus is extralimital to the
Beaufort Sea suggests that any marine
operations working in the geographic
area will have minimal walrus
interactions within the geographic
region. Indeed, only 9 walruses have
been sighted by Industry operations
since 1994.
Polar bears range well beyond the
boundaries of the geographic region of
these proposed regulations
(approximately 68.9 million acres) and
are transient through the regions of
Industry infrastructure. As reported by
AOGA, the total infrastructure area on
the North Slope as of 2007 was 18,129
acres, which is a small proportion of the
requested geographic region.
3. Monitoring requirements and
adaptive mitigation measures are
expected to significantly limit the
number of incidental takes of animals.
Holders of an LOA will be required to
adopt monitoring requirements and
mitigation measures designed to reduce
potential impacts of their operations on
walruses and polar bears. Monitoring
programs are required to inform
operators of the presence of polar bears
or walrus. Adaptive management
responses based on real-time monitoring
information (described in these
regulations) will be used to avoid or
minimize interactions with walruses
and polar bears. For Industry activities
in terrestrial environments, where
denning polar bears may be a factor,
mitigation measures will require that
den detection surveys be conducted and
Industry will maintain at least a 1-mile
distance from any known polar bear
den. A full description of the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
associated with an LOA, which will be
requirements for Industry, can be found
in 50 CFR 18.128.
We expect that only a small
proportion of the Pacific walrus
population or the CS and SBS polar bear
populations will likely to be impacted
by any individual project because: (1)
Only small numbers of walruses or
polar bears will occur in the marine or
terrestrial environments where Industry
activities will occur; (2) only small
numbers will be impacted because
walrus are extralimital in the Beaufort
Sea and polar bears are widely
distributed throughout their expansive
ranges, which encompasses area outside
of the geographic region of the
regulations; and (3) the monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures
described below that will be imposed on
Industry will further reduce impacts.
Negligible Effects Determination
Based upon our review of the nature,
scope, and timing of the proposed oil
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
and gas activities and mitigation
measures, and in consideration of the
best available scientific information, we
have determined that the proposed
activities will have a negligible impact
on Pacific walrus and on polar bears.
Factors considered in our negligible
effects determination include:
1. The behavior and distribution of
walruses and polar bears utilizing areas
that overlap with Industry is expected to
limit the amount of interactions between
walruses, polar bears, and Industry. The
distribution and habitat use patterns of
walruses and polar bears in conjunction
with the likely area of Industrial activity
results in relatively few animals in the
area of operations and, therefore, likely
to be affected. As discussed in the
section ‘‘Biological Information’’ (see
Pacific Walrus section), only small
numbers of walruses are likely to be
found in Beaufort Sea open water
habitats where offshore Industry
activities will occur.
Throughout the year, polar bears are
closely associated with pack ice and are
unlikely to interact with open-water
industrial activities for the same reasons
discussed in the Small Numbers
Determination. Likewise, polar bears
from the SBS and CS populations are
widely distributed and range outside of
the geographic region of these
regulations. In addition, through fall
coastal surveys we estimated that a
small proportion of the SBS population,
approximately 8–10 percent, is
distributed along the coastal areas
during the late-summer–early-fall
season.
2. The predicted effects of proposed
activities on walruses and polar bears
will be nonlethal, temporary passive
takes of animals. The documented
impacts of previous Industry activities
on walruses and polar bears, taking into
consideration cumulative effects,
provides direct information that the
types of activities analyzed for this rule
will have minimal effects and will be
short-term, temporary behavioral
changes.
3. The footprint of authorized projects
is expected to be small relative to the
range of polar bear and walrus
populations. As with the small numbers
determination, this factor will also help
minimize negligible effects of Industry
on Pacific walrus and polar bears. A
limited area of activity will reduce the
potential to exposure of animals to
Industry activities and limit potential
interactions of those animals using the
area, such as walrus feeding in the area
or polar bears or walruses moving
through the area.
4. Mitigation measures will limit
potential effects of industry activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13483
As described in the Small Numbers
Determination, holders of an LOA will
be required to adopt monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures
designed to reduce potential impacts of
their operations on walruses and polar
bears. Seasonal restrictions, monitoring
programs required to inform operators
of the presence of marine mammals and
environmental conditions, den
detection surveys for polar bears, and
adaptive management responses based
on real-time monitoring information
(described in these regulations) will be
used to avoid or minimize interactions
with polar bears and walruses and,
therefore, limit Industry effects on these
animals.
5. The potential impacts of climate
change for the duration of the
regulations (2011–2016) has the
potential to displace polar bears and
walruses from the geographic region
and during the season of Industry
activity. Climate change is likely to
result in significant impacts to polar
bear and walrus populations in the
future. Recent models indicate that the
persistence of Alaska’s polar bear stocks
are in doubt and will possibly disappear
within 50 to 100 years due to the
changing Arctic ice conditions as a
result of climate change. Recent trends
in the Arctic have resulted in seasonal
sea-ice retreat off the continental shelf
and over deep Arctic Ocean waters,
presenting significant adaptive
challenges to walruses. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to the Pacific walrus
population as a result of diminishing
sea ice cover include: Shifts in range
and abundance, possibly into the
Beaufort Sea; increased reliance on
coastal haulouts in the Chukchi Sea;
and increased mortality associated with
predation and disturbance events at
coastal haulouts.
Although climate change is a pressing
conservation issue for ice-dependent
species, such as polar bears and
walruses, we have concluded that the
activities proposed by Industry and
addressed in this 5-year rule will not
adversely impact the survival of these
species. One likely response to nearterm climate-driven change (retreat of
sea ice) will result in each species
utilizing areas, such as coastal haulouts
by walrus and the ice shelf by a
continued majority of the polar bear
population, outside of the geographic
region and proposed areas of Industrial
activity. While the Service suspects that
a certain portion of the bear population
using coastal habitats (currently 8–10
percent of the SBS population) will
increase and associate with terrestrial
habitats longer, the types of effects as a
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13484
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
result of Industry interaction will be
short-term behavioral changes.
We, therefore, conclude that any
incidental take reasonably likely to or
reasonably expected to occur as a result
of carrying out any of the activities
authorized under these regulations will
have no more than a negligible effect on
polar bears and Pacific walruses using
the Beaufort Sea region, and we do not
expect any resulting disturbances to
negatively impact the rates of
recruitment or survival for the polar
bears and Pacific walrus populations.
These regulations do not authorize
lethal take, and we do not anticipate
that any lethal take will occur.
Findings
We propose the following findings
regarding this action:
Small Numbers
Pacific Walrus
Pacific walruses are extralimital in the
SBS and, hence, there is a very low
probability that Industry activities,
including offshore drilling operations,
seismic, and coastal activities, will
adversely affect the Pacific walrus
population. Given the low numbers in
the region, we anticipate no more than
a small number of walruses are likely to
be taken during the length of this rule.
We do not anticipate the potential for
any lethal take from normal Industry
activities. Therefore, we do not
anticipate any detrimental effects on
recruitment or survival.
We estimate that the projected
number of takes of Pacific walruses by
Industry will be no more than 10 takes
by harassment per year. Takes will be
Level B harassment, manifested as
short-term behavioral changes. This take
estimate is based on historic Industry
monitoring observations. In addition,
based on the projected level of
exploration activity, it is unlikely that
the number of takes will increase
significantly in the next 5 years.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Polar Bear
Standard operating conditions for
Industry exploration, development, and
production activities have the potential
to incidentally take polar bears. Recent
reporting data from the current ITRs
indicates that an annual average of 306
polar bears have been observed during
Industry activities. Some of these
observations are likely sightings of the
same bears due to the inability to
distinguish between animals in some
observations. While the majority of
observations are sightings where no
interaction between bears and Industry
occurs (81 percent of all bear
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS
unpubl. data), takes by harassment do
occur. Takes by harassment can be
described as either: (1) Deterrence
events (15 percent of all bear
observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS
unpubl. data); and (2) those occasions
when there is clear evidence that the
bear’s behavior has been altered through
events other than deterrence (4 percent
of all bear observations from 2006 to
2009: USFWS unpubl. data).
Small takes of this nature are allowed
through LOAs. According to industry
monitoring data, the number of Level B
takes (deterrence events and behavioral
change events), averaged 66 occurrences
per year from 2006 to 2009 (67 takes in
2006, 64 takes in 2007, 33 takes in 2008,
and 101 takes in 2009).
Using this data, we anticipate that the
total number of takes of polar bears by
all Level B harassment events will not
exceed 150 per year. All anticipated
takes will be nonlethal Level B
harassment, involving only temporary
changes in bear behavior. The required
mitigation and monitoring measures
described in the regulations are
expected to prevent injurious Level A
takes. The number of lethal takes is
projected to be zero. We do not expect
the total of these disturbances to affect
rates of recruitment or survival in the
SBS polar bear population.
(3) The nature of oil and gas Industry
activities;
(4) The potential effects of Industry
activities and potential oil spills on the
species;
(5) The probability of oil spills
occurring;
(6) The documented impacts of
Industry activities on the species taking
into consideration cumulative effects
(through FLIR surveys, the use of
trained dogs to detect occupied dens, a
bear–human conflicts workshop, a study
assessing sound levels and of industrial
noise and potential noise and vibration
exposure for dens, and data mapping
den habitat);
(7) The potential impacts of climate
change, where both walruses and polar
bears can potentially be displaced from
preferred habitat;
(8) The existing and proposed
mitigation measures designed to
minimize Industry impacts through
adaptive management; and
(9) Other data provided by Industry
monitoring programs in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas.
We also considered the specific
Congressional direction in balancing the
potential for a significant impact with
the likelihood of that event occurring.
The specific Congressional direction
that justifies balancing probabilities
with impacts follows:
Negligible Impact
Based on the best scientific
information available, the results of
monitoring data from our previous
regulations (16 years of monitoring and
reporting data), the review of the
information generated by the listing of
the polar bear as a threatened species
and the designation of polar bear critical
habitat, the ongoing analysis of the
petition to list the Pacific walrus as a
threatened species under the ESA, the
results of our modeling assessments,
and the status of the population, we find
that any incidental take reasonably
likely to result from the effects of oil
and gas related exploration,
development, and production activities
during the period of the rule, in the
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern
coast of Alaska, will have no more than
a negligible impact on polar bears and
Pacific walruses. In making this finding,
we considered the following:
(1) The distribution of the species
(through 10 years of aerial surveys and
studies of feeding ecology, and a
regression analysis of pack ice position
and polar bear distribution);
(2) The biological characteristics of
the species (through bio-monitoring for
toxic chemicals, studies of den site
behavior, radio-telemetry data);
If potential effects of a specified activity
are conjectural or speculative, a finding of
negligible impact may be appropriate. A
finding of negligible impact may also be
appropriate if the probability of occurrence is
low but the potential effects may be
significant. In this case, the probability of
occurrence of impacts must be balanced with
the potential severity of harm to the species
or stock when determining negligible impact.
In applying this balancing test, the Service
will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved
and the potential impacts on marine mammal
populations. Such determination will be
made based on the best available scientific
information [53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988;
132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)].
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Pacific walruses are only occasionally
found during the open-water season in
the Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea polar
bear population is widely distributed
throughout its range. A small percentage
(less than 10 percent) of the SBS polar
bear population typically occurs in
coastal and nearshore areas where most
Industry activities happen.
We reviewed the effects of the oil and
gas Industry activities on polar bears
and Pacific walruses, including impacts
from noise, physical obstructions,
human encounters, and oil spills. Based
on our review of these potential
impacts, past LOA monitoring reports,
and the biology and natural history of
Pacific walrus and polar bear, we
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
conclude that any incidental take
reasonably likely to or reasonably
expected to occur as a result of
projected activities will have a
negligible impact on polar bear and
Pacific walrus populations.
Furthermore, we do not expect these
disturbances to affect the rates of
recruitment or survival for the Pacific
walrus and polar bear populations.
These regulations do not authorize
lethal take, and we do not anticipate any
lethal take will occur.
The probability of an oil spill that will
cause significant impacts to Pacific
walruses and polar bears appears
extremely low. We have included
potential spill information from
Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, Northstar, and
Endicott/Liberty offshore projects in our
oil spill analysis to analyze multiple
offshore sites. We have analyzed the
likelihood of an oil spill in the marine
environment of the magnitude necessary
to kill a significant number of polar
bears for offshore projects and, through
a risk assessment analysis, found that it
is unlikely that there will be any lethal
take. In the unlikely event of a
catastrophic spill, we will take
immediate action to minimize the
impacts to these species and reconsider
the appropriateness of authorizations for
incidental taking through section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
After considering the cumulative
effects of existing and proposed
development, production, and
exploration activities, and the
likelihood of any impacts, both onshore
and offshore, we find that the total
expected takings resulting from oil and
gas Industry activities will affect no
more than small numbers and will have
no more than a negligible impact on the
SBS polar bear and Pacific walrus
populations inhabiting the Beaufort Sea
area on the North Slope coast of Alaska.
Our finding of ‘‘negligible impact’’
applies to incidental take associated
with proposed oil and gas exploration,
development, and production activities
as mitigated through the regulatory
process. The regulations establish
monitoring and reporting requirements
to evaluate the potential impacts of
authorized activities, as well as
mitigation measures designed to
minimize interactions with and impacts
to walruses and polar bears. We will
evaluate each request for an LOA based
on the specific activity and the specific
geographic location where the proposed
activities are projected to occur to
ensure that the level of activity and
potential take is consistent with our
finding of negligible impact. Depending
on the results of the evaluation, we may
grant the authorization, add further
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
operating restrictions, or deny the
authorization.
Conditions are attached to each LOA.
These conditions minimize interference
with normal breeding, feeding, and
possible migration patterns to ensure
that the effects to the species remain
negligible. Conditions include: (1) These
regulations do not authorize intentional
taking of polar bear or Pacific walruses
or lethal incidental take; (2) for the
protection of pregnant polar bears
during denning activities (den selection,
birthing, and maturation of cubs) in
known denning areas, Industry
activities may be restricted in specific
locations during specified times of the
year; and (3) each activity covered by an
LOA requires a site-specific plan of
operation and a site-specific polar bear
interaction plan. We may add additional
measures depending upon site-specific
and species-specific concerns.
Restrictions in denning areas will be
applied on a case-by-case basis after
assessing each LOA request and may
require pre-activity surveys (e.g., aerial
surveys, FLIR surveys, or polar bear
scent-trained dogs) to determine the
presence or absence of denning activity
and, in known denning areas, may
require enhanced monitoring or flight
restrictions, such as minimum flight
elevations, if necessary. We will analyze
the required plan of operation and
interaction plans to ensure that the level
of activity and possible take are
consistent with our finding that total
incidental takes will have a negligible
impact on polar bear and Pacific
walruses and, where relevant, will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of these species for
subsistence uses.
We have evaluated climate change in
regard to polar bears and walruses.
Although climate change is a worldwide
phenomenon, it was analyzed as a
contributing effect that could alter polar
bear and walrus habitat and behavior.
Climate change could alter polar bear
habitat because seasonal changes, such
as extended duration of open water,
may preclude sea-ice habitat use and
restrict some bears to coastal areas. The
reduction of sea ice extent, caused by
climate change, may also affect the
timing of polar bear seasonal
movements between the coastal regions
and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues
to recede as predicted, it is
hypothesized that polar bears may
spend more time on land rather than on
sea ice similar to what has been
recorded in the Hudson Bay. Climate
change could also alter terrestrial
denning habitat through coastal erosion
brought about by accelerated wave
action. The challenge in the Beaufort
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13485
Sea will be predicting changes in ice
habitat, barrier islands, and coastal
habitats in relation to changes in polar
bear distribution and use of habitat.
Within the described geographic
region of this rule, Industry effects on
Pacific walruses and polar bears are
expected to occur at a level similar to
what has taken place under previous
regulations. We anticipate that there
will be an increased use of terrestrial
habitat in the fall period by polar bears.
We also anticipate a slight increased use
of terrestrial habitat by denning bears.
Nevertheless, we expect no significant
impact to these species as a result of
these anticipated changes. The
mitigation measures will be effective in
minimizing any additional effects
attributed to seasonal shifts in
distribution or denning polar bears
during the 5-year timeframe of the
regulations. It is likely that, due to
potential seasonal changes in
abundance and distribution of polar
bears during the fall, more frequent
encounters may occur and that Industry
may have to implement mitigation
measures more often, for example,
increasing polar bear deterrence events.
In addition, if additional polar bear den
locations are detected within industrial
activity areas, spatial and temporal
mitigation measures, including
cessation of activities, may be instituted
more frequently during the 5-year
period of the rule.
Climate change over time continues to
be a major concern to the Service, and
we are currently involved in the
collection of baseline data to help us
understand how the effects of climate
change will be manifested in the SBS
polar bear population. As we gain a
better understanding of climate change
effects on the SBS population, we will
incorporate the information in future
actions. Ongoing studies include those
led by the Service and the USGS Alaska
Science Center to examine polar bear
habitat use, reproduction, and survival
relative to a changing sea ice
environment. Specific objectives of the
project include: an enhanced
understanding of polar bear habitat
availability and quality influenced by
ongoing climate changes and the
response by polar bears; the effects of
polar bear responses to climate-induced
changes to the sea ice environment on
body condition of adults, numbers and
sizes of offspring, and survival of
offspring to weaning (recruitment); and
population age structure.
Although Pacific walruses are
relatively rare in the Beaufort Sea, the
Service and USGS are conducting
multiyear studies on the population to
investigate movements and habitat use
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13486
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
patterns. It is possible that as sea ice
diminishes in the Chukchi Sea beyond
the 5-year period of this rule, more
walruses will migrate east into the
Beaufort Sea.
Impact on Subsistence Take
Based on community consultations,
locations of hunting areas, the potential
overlap of hunting areas and Industry
projects, the best scientific information
available, and the results of monitoring
data, we find that take caused by oil and
gas exploration, development, and
production activities in the Beaufort Sea
and adjacent northern coast of Alaska
will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of polar bears
and Pacific walruses for taking for
subsistence uses during the period of
the rule. In making this finding, we
considered the following: (1) Records on
subsistence harvest from the Service’s
Marking, Tagging and Reporting
Program; (2) community consultations;
(3) effectiveness of the POCs between
Industry and affected Native
communities; and (4) anticipated 5-year
effects of Industry activities on
subsistence hunting. In addition, our
findings also incorporated the results of
coastal aerial surveys conducted within
the area during the past 7 years, upon
direct observations of polar bears
occurring near bowhead whale carcasses
on Barter Island and on Cross Island
during the villages of Kaktovik and
Nuiqsut’s annual fall bowhead whaling
efforts, respectively, and upon anecdotal
reports of North Slope residents.
Polar bear and Pacific walruses
represent a small portion, in terms of
the number of animals, of the total
subsistence harvest for the villages of
Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik.
However, the low numbers do not mean
that the harvest of these species is not
important to Alaska Natives. Prior to
receipt of an LOA, Industry must
provide evidence to us that community
consultations have occurred or that an
adequate POC has been presented to the
subsistence communities. Industry will
be required to contact subsistence
communities that may be affected by its
activities to discuss potential conflicts
caused by location, timing, and methods
of proposed operations. Industry must
make reasonable efforts to ensure that
activities do not interfere with
subsistence hunting and that adverse
effects on the availability of polar bear
or Pacific walruses are minimized.
Although multiple meetings for
multiple projects from numerous
operators have already taken place, no
official concerns have been voiced by
the Native communities with regard to
Industry activities limiting availability
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
of polar bears or walruses for
subsistence uses. However, should such
a concern be voiced as Industry
continues to reach out to the Native
communities, development of Plans of
Cooperation, which must identify
measures to minimize any adverse
effects, will be required. The POC will
ensure that oil and gas activities will
continue not to have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock for subsistence uses.
This POC must provide the procedures
addressing how Industry will work with
the affected Native communities and
what actions will be taken to avoid
interference with subsistence hunting of
polar bear and walruses, as warranted.
The Service has not received any
reports and is aware of no information
that indicates that bears or walruses are
being or will be deflected from hunting
areas or impacted in any way that
diminishes their availability for
subsistence use by the expected level of
oil and gas activity. If there is evidence
during the 5-year period of the
regulations that oil and gas activities are
affecting the availability of polar bear or
walruses for take for subsistence uses,
we will reevaluate our findings
regarding permissible limits of take and
the measures required to ensure
continued subsistence hunting
opportunities.
Monitoring and Reporting
The purpose of monitoring
requirements is to assess the effects of
industrial activities on polar bears and
walruses to ensure that take is
consistent with that anticipated in the
negligible impact and subsistence use
analyses, and to detect any
unanticipated effects on the species.
Monitoring plans document when and
how bears and walruses are
encountered, the number of bears and
walruses, and their behavior during the
encounter. This information allows the
Service to measure encounter rates and
trends of bear and walrus activity in the
industrial areas (such as numbers and
gender, activity, seasonal use) and to
estimate numbers of animals potentially
affected by Industry. Monitoring plans
are site-specific, dependent on the
proximity of the activity to important
habitat areas, such as den sites, travel
corridors, and food sources; however,
all activities are required to report all
sightings of polar bears and walruses.
To the extent possible, monitors will
record group size, age, sex, reaction,
duration of interaction, and closest
approach to Industry. Activities within
the coast of the geographic region may
incorporate daily watch logs as well,
which record 24-hour animal
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
observations throughout the duration of
the project. Polar bear monitors will be
incorporated into the monitoring plan if
bears are known to frequent the area or
known polar bear dens are present in
the area. At offshore Industry sites,
systematic monitoring protocols will be
implemented to statistically monitor
observation trends of walruses or polar
bears in the nearshore areas where they
usually occur.
Monitoring activities are summarized
and reported in a formal report each
year. The applicant must submit an
annual monitoring and reporting plan at
least 90 days prior to the initiation of a
proposed activity, and the applicant
must submit a final monitoring report to
us no later than 90 days after the
completion of the activity. We base each
year’s monitoring objective on the
previous year’s monitoring results.
We require an approved plan for
monitoring and reporting the effects of
oil and gas Industry exploration,
development, and production activities
on polar bear and walruses prior to
issuance of an LOA. Since production
activities are continuous and long-term,
upon approval, LOAs and their required
monitoring and reporting plans will be
issued for the life of the activity or until
the expiration of the regulations,
whichever occurs first. Each year, prior
to January 15, we require that the
operator submit development and
production activity monitoring results
of the previous year’s activity. We
require approval of the monitoring
results for continued operation under
the LOA.
Treaty Obligations
The ITRs are consistent with the
Bilateral Agreement for the
Conservation and Management of the
Polar Bear between the United States
and Russia. Article II of the Polar Bear
Agreement lists three obligations of the
Parties in protecting polar bear habitat:
(1) ‘‘Take appropriate action to protect
the ecosystem of which polar bears are
a part;’’
(2) ‘‘Give special attention to habitat
components such as denning and
feeding sites and migration patterns;’’
and
(3) ‘‘Manage polar bear populations in
accordance with sound conservation
practices based on the best available
scientific data.’’
This rule is also consistent with the
Service’s treaty obligations because it
incorporates mitigation measures that
ensure the protection of polar bear
habitat. LOAs for industrial activities
are conditioned to include area or
seasonal timing limitations or
prohibitions, such as placing 1-mile
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
avoidance buffers around known or
observed dens (which halts or limits
activity until the bear naturally leaves
the den), building roads perpendicular
to the coast to allow for polar bear
movements along the coast, and
monitoring the effects of the activities
on polar bears. Available denning
habitat maps are provided by the USGS.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we solicit comments or
suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this
proposed rule.
If you wish to comment, you may
submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of
several methods, as listed above in
ADDRESSES. If you submit comments by
e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special
characters and encryption. Please
include ‘‘Attn: Docket No. FWS–R7–
FHC–2010–0098’’ and your name and
return address in your e-mail message.
Please note that this e-mail address will
be closed out at the termination of the
public comment period. Before
including your address, phone number,
e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public view, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations that are easy
to understand. We invite your
comments on how to make this rule
easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
(2) Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule
(grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or
reduce its clarity?
(4) Would the rule be easier to
understand if it were divided into more
(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’
appears in bold type and is preceded by
the symbol ‘‘Sec.’’ and a numbered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
13487
heading; for example, § 18.123. When is
this subpart effective?)
(5) Is the description of the rule in the
‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of
the preamble helpful in understanding
the proposed rule?
(6) What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public view, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
not significant and has not reviewed
this rule under Executive Order 12866
(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Required Determinations
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
We have determined that this rule is
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2),
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule is
also not likely to result in a major
increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, or
government agencies or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, productivity, innovation,
or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Considerations
We have prepared a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
conjunction with this rulemaking.
Subsequent to closure of the comment
period for this proposed rule, we will
decide whether this rulemaking is a
major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of
Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of 1969.
For a copy of the draft EA, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098
or contact the individual identified
above in the section FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act
On May 15, 2008, the Service listed
the polar bear as a threatened species
under the ESA (73 FR 28212) and on
December 7, 2010 (75 FR 76086), the
Service designated critical habitat for
polar bear populations in the United
States, effective January 6, 2011. Section
7(a)(1) and (2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(1) and (2)) direct the Service to
review its programs and to utilize such
programs in the furtherance of the
purposes of the ESA and to ensure that
a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of an
ESA-listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Consistent with these
statutory requirements, the Service’s
Marine Mammal Management Office has
initiated Intra-Service section 7
consultation over these regulations with
the Service’s Fairbanks’ Ecological
Services Field Office.
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this
rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil
companies and their contractors
conducting exploration, development,
and production activities in Alaska have
been identified as the only likely
applicants under the regulations.
Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required. In addition,
these potential applicants have not been
identified as small businesses and,
therefore, a Small Entity Compliance
Guide is not required. The analysis for
this rule is available from the individual
identified above in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Takings Implications
This rule does not have takings
implications under Executive Order
12630 because it authorizes the
nonlethal, incidental, but not
intentional, take of walruses and polar
bears by oil and gas Industry companies
and thereby exempts these companies
from civil and criminal liability as long
as they operate in compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
13488
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings
implications assessment is not required.
Federalism Effects
This rule does not contain policies
with Federalism implications sufficient
to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment under Executive Order
13132. The MMPA gives the Service the
authority and responsibility to protect
walruses and polar bears.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et
seq.), this rule will not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments. A
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. The Service has determined
and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act that this
rulemaking will not impose a cost of
$100 million or more in any given year
on local or State governments or private
entities. This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Government-to-Government
Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3225,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a
Government-to-Government basis. We
have evaluated possible effects on
federally recognized Alaska Native
tribes. Through the LOA process
identified in the regulations, Industry
presents a POC with the Native
communities most likely to be affected
and engages these communities in
numerous informational meetings.
To facilitate co-management
activities, cooperative agreements have
been completed by the Service, the
Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC) and
the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC).
The cooperative agreements fund a wide
variety of management issues,
including: commission co-management
operations; biological sampling
programs; harvest monitoring; collection
of Native knowledge in management;
international coordination on
management issues; cooperative
enforcement of the MMPA; and
development of local conservation
plans. To help realize mutual
management goals, the Service, ANC,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
and EWC regularly hold meetings to
discuss future expectations and outline
a shared vision of co-management.
The Service also has ongoing
cooperative relationships with the North
Slope Borough and the InupiatInuvialuit Game Commission where we
work cooperatively to ensure that data
collected from harvest and research are
used to ensure that polar bears are
available for harvest in the future;
provide information to co-management
partners that allows them to evaluate
harvest relative to their management
agreements and objectives; and provide
information that allows evaluation of
the status, trends, and health of polar
bear populations.
distribution, or use and does not
constitute a significant energy action.
No Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Civil Justice Reform
The Departmental Solicitor’s Office
has determined that these regulations do
not unduly burden the judicial system
and meet the applicable standards
provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Service proposes to
amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter
1, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information
collection requirements. We may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. The
Information collection requirements
included in this rule are approved by
the OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The OMB control number
assigned to these information collection
requirements is 1018–0070, which
expires on January 31, 2014. This
control number covers the information
collection, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart J,
which are associated with the
development and issuance of specific
regulations and LOAs.
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. This rule provides exceptions
from the taking prohibitions of the
MMPA for entities engaged in the
exploration of oil and gas in the
Beaufort Sea and adjacent coast of
Alaska. By providing certainty regarding
compliance with the MMPA, this rule
will have a positive effect on Industry
and its activities. Although the rule
requires Industry to take a number of
actions, these actions have been
undertaken by Industry for many years
as part of similar past regulations.
Therefore, this rule is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
References
For a list of the references cited in this
rule, see Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–
2010–0098, available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas
exploration, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR
part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Amend part 18 by revising subpart
J to read as follows:
Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine
Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas
Exploration, Development, and
Production Activities in the Beaufort
Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of
Alaska
Sec.
18.121 What specified activities does this
subpart cover?
18.122 In what specified geographic region
does this subpart apply?
18.123 When is this subpart effective?
18.124 How do I obtain a Letter of
Authorization?
18.125 What criteria does the Service use to
evaluate Letter of Authorization
requests?
18.126 What does a Letter of Authorization
allow?
18.127 What activities are prohibited?
18.128 What are the mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements?
18.129 What are the information collection
requirements?
Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine
Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas
Exploration, Development, and
Production Activities in the Beaufort
Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of
Alaska
§ 18.121 What specified activities does
this subpart cover?
Regulations in this subpart apply to
the nonlethal incidental, but not
intentional, take of small numbers of
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 18.123
Regulations in this subpart are
effective from [Insert effective date of
the final rule] through [Insert date 5
years from the effective date of the final
rule] for year-round oil and gas
exploration, development, and
production activities.
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
This subpart applies to the specified
geographic region defined by all
Beaufort Sea waters east of a northsouth line through Point Barrow
(71°23′29″ N., ¥156 °28′30″ W., BGN
1944), and up to 200 miles north of
Point Barrow, including all Alaska
coastal areas, State waters, and Outer
§ 18.124 How do I obtain a Letter of
Authorization?
When is this subpart effective?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
§ 18.122 In what specified geographic
region does this subpart apply?
(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as
defined in § 18.27(c).
(b) If you are conducting an oil and
gas exploration, development, or
production activity in the specified
geographic region described in § 18.122
that may cause the taking of polar bears
or Pacific walruses in execution of those
activities and you want nonlethal
incidental take authorization under this
rule, you must apply for a Letter of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Continental Shelf waters east of that line
to the Canadian border. The onshore
region is the same north/south line at
Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the
Canning River. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is not included in the
area covered by this subpart. Figure 1
shows the area where this subpart
applies.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Authorization for each exploration
activity or a Letter of Authorization for
activities in each development or
production area. You must submit the
application for authorization to our
Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR
2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to
the start of the proposed activity.
(c) Your application for a Letter of
Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) A description of the activity, the
dates and duration of the activity, the
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
EP11MR11.001
polar bear and Pacific walrus by you
(U.S. citizens as defined in § 18.27(c))
while engaged in oil and gas
exploration, development, and
production activities in the Beaufort Sea
and adjacent northern coast of Alaska.
13489
13490
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
specific location, and the estimated area
affected by that activity, i.e., a plan of
operation.
(2) A site-specific plan to monitor the
effects of the activity on the behavior of
polar bears and Pacific walruses that
may be present during the ongoing
activities (i.e., marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan). Your
monitoring program must document the
effects to these marine mammals and
estimate the actual level and type of
take. The monitoring requirements
provided by the Service will vary
depending on the activity, the location,
and the time of year.
(3) A site-specific polar bear and/or
walrus awareness and interaction plan.
A polar bear interaction plan for each
operation will outline the steps the
applicant will take to limit human-bear
interactions, increase site safety, and
minimize impacts to bear.
(4) A Plan of Cooperation (POC) to
mitigate potential conflicts between the
proposed activity and subsistence
hunting, where relevant. Applicants
must consult with potentially affected
subsistence communities along the
Beaufort Sea coast (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut,
and Barrow) and appropriate
subsistence user organizations (the
Eskimo Walrus Commission and the
Alaska Nanuuq (polar bear)
Commission) to discuss the location,
timing, and methods of proposed
operations and support activities and
identify any potential conflicts with
subsistence walrus and polar bear
hunting activities in the communities.
Applications for Letters of
Authorization must include
documentation of all consultations with
potentially affected user groups.
Documentation must include a
summary of any concerns identified by
community members and hunter
organizations, and the applicant’s
responses to identified concerns. Some
of these measures may include, but are
not limited to, mitigation measures
described in § 18.128.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 18.125 What criteria does the Service
use to evaluate Letter of Authorization
requests?
(a) We will evaluate each request for
a Letter of Authorization based on the
specific activity and the specific
geographic location. We will determine
whether the level of activity identified
in the request exceeds that analyzed by
us in considering the number of animals
likely to be taken and evaluating
whether there will be a negligible
impact on the species or an adverse
impact on the availability of the species
for subsistence uses. If the level of
activity is greater, we will reevaluate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
our findings to determine if those
findings continue to be appropriate
based on the greater level of activity that
you have requested. Depending on the
results of the evaluation, we may grant
the authorization, add further
conditions, or deny the authorization.
(b) In accordance with § 18.27(f)(5),
we will make decisions concerning
withdrawals of Letters of Authorization,
either on an individual or class basis,
only after notice and opportunity for
public comment.
(c) The requirement for notice and
public comment in paragraph (b) of this
section will not apply should we
determine that an emergency exists that
poses a significant risk to the well-being
of the species or stocks of polar bears or
Pacific walruses.
§ 18.126 What does a Letter of
Authorization allow?
(a) Your Letter of Authorization may
allow the nonlethal incidental, but not
intentional, take of polar bears and
Pacific walruses when you are carrying
out one or more of the following
activities:
(1) Conducting geological and
geophysical surveys and associated
activities;
(2) Drilling exploratory wells and
associated activities;
(3) Developing oil fields and
associated activities;
(4) Drilling production wells and
performing production support
operations;
(5) Conducting environmental
monitoring activities associated with
exploration, development, and
production activities to determine
specific impacts of each activity;
(6) Conducting restoration,
remediation, demobilization programs,
and associated activities.
(b) Each Letter of Authorization will
identify conditions or methods that are
specific to the activity and location.
§ 18.127
What activities are prohibited?
(a) Intentional take and lethal
incidental take of polar bears or Pacific
walruses; and
(b) Any take that fails to comply with
this part or with the terms and
conditions of your Letter of
Authorization.
§ 18.128 What are the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements?
(a) Mitigation. Holders of a Letter of
Authorization must use methods and
conduct activities in a manner that
minimizes to the greatest extent
practicable adverse impacts on walruses
and polar bears, their habitat, and on the
availability of these marine mammals
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for subsistence uses. Dynamic
management approaches, such as
temporal or spatial limitations in
response to the presence of marine
mammals in a particular place or time
or the occurrence of marine mammals
engaged in a particularly sensitive
activity (such as feeding), must be used
to avoid or minimize interactions with
polar bears, walruses, and subsistence
users of these resources.
(1) All applicants. (i) We require
holders of Letters of Authorization to
cooperate with us and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to
monitor the impacts of oil and gas
exploration, development, and
production activities on polar bears and
Pacific walruses.
(ii) Holders of Letters of Authorization
must designate a qualified individual or
individuals to observe, record, and
report on the effects of their activities on
polar bears and Pacific walruses.
(iii) Holders of Letters of
Authorization must have an approved
polar bear and/or walrus interaction
plan on file with the Service and onsite,
and polar bear awareness training will
also be required of certain personnel.
Interaction plans must include:
(A) The type of activity and, where
and when the activity will occur, i.e., a
plan of operation;
(B) A food and waste management
plan;
(C) Personnel training materials and
procedures;
(D) Site at-risk locations and
situations;
(E) Walrus and bear observation and
reporting procedures; and
(F) Bear and walrus avoidance and
encounter procedures.
(iv) All applicants for a Letter of
Authorization must contact affected
subsistence communities to discuss
potential conflicts caused by location,
timing, and methods of proposed
operations and submit to us a record of
communication that documents these
discussions. If appropriate, the
applicant for a Letter of Authorization
must also submit to us a POC that
ensures that activities will not interfere
with subsistence hunting and that
adverse effects on the availability of
polar bear or Pacific walruses are
minimized (see § 18.124(c)(4)).
(v) If deemed appropriate by the
Service, holders of a Letter of
Authorization will be required to hire
and train polar bear monitors to alert
crew of the presence of polar bears and
initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
(2) Onshore activities. Efforts to
minimize disturbance around known
polar bear dens.—Holders of a Letter of
Authorization must take efforts to limit
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
disturbance around known polar bear
dens.
(i) Efforts to locate polar bear dens.—
Holders of a Letter of Authorization
seeking to carry out onshore exploration
activities in known or suspected polar
bear denning habitat during the denning
season (November–April) must make
efforts to locate occupied polar bear
dens within and near proposed areas of
operation, utilizing appropriate tools,
such as, forward looking infrared (FLIR)
imagery and/or polar bear scent-trained
dogs. All observed or suspected polar
bear dens must be reported to the
Service prior to the initiation of
activities.
(ii) Exclusion zone around known
polar bear dens.—Operators must
observe a 1-mile operational exclusion
zone around all known polar bear dens
during the denning season (November–
April, or until the female and cubs leave
the areas). Should previously unknown
occupied dens be discovered within 1
mile of activities, work in the immediate
area must cease and the Service
contacted for guidance. The Service will
evaluate these instances on a case-bycase basis to determine the appropriate
action. Potential actions may range from
cessation or modification of work to
conducting additional monitoring, and
the holder of the authorization must
comply with any additional measures
specified.
(iii) The use of den habitat map
developed by the USGS. A map of
potential coastal polar bear denning
habitat can be found at: https://
alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/
polar_bears/pubs.html. This measure
ensures that the location of potential
polar bear dens is considered when
conducting activities in the coastal areas
of the Beaufort Sea.
(iv) Restricting the timing of the
activity to limit disturbance around
dens.
(3) Operating conditions for
operational and support vessels. (i)
Operational and support vessels must be
staffed with dedicated marine mammal
observers to alert crew of the presence
of walruses and polar bears and initiate
adaptive mitigation responses.
(ii) At all times, vessels must maintain
the maximum distance possible from
concentrations of walruses or polar
bears. Under no circumstances, other
than an emergency, should any vessel
approach within a 805-m (0.5-mi) radius
of walruses or polar bears observed on
land or ice.
(iii) Vessel operators must take every
precaution to avoid harassment of
concentrations of feeding walruses
when a vessel is operating near these
animals. Vessels should reduce speed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5mi) operational exclusion zone around
feeding walrus groups. Vessels may not
be operated in such a way as to separate
members of a group of walruses from
other members of the group. When
weather conditions require, such as
when visibility drops, vessels should
adjust speed accordingly to avoid the
likelihood of injury to walruses.
(iv) The transit of operational and
support vessels through the specified
geographic region is not authorized
prior to July 1. This operating condition
is intended to allow walruses the
opportunity to disperse from the
confines of the spring lead system and
minimize interactions with subsistence
walrus hunters. Exemption waivers to
this operating condition may be issued
by the Service on a case-by-case basis,
based upon a review of seasonal ice
conditions and available information on
walrus and polar bear distributions in
the area of interest.
(v) All vessels shall avoid areas of
active or anticipated walrus or polar
bear hunting activity as determined
through community consultations.
(vi) The use of trained marine
mammal monitors associated with
marine activities. We may require a
monitor on the site of the activity or on
board drill ships, drill rigs, aircraft,
icebreakers, or other support vessels or
vehicles to monitor the impacts of
Industry’s activity on polar bear and
Pacific walruses.
(4) Operating conditions for aircraft.
(i) Operators of support aircraft should,
at all times, conduct their activities at
the maximum distance possible from
concentrations of walruses or polar
bears.
(ii) Under no circumstances, other
than an emergency, should aircraft
operate at an altitude lower than 305 m
(1,000 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of
walruses or polar bears observed on ice
or land. Helicopters may not hover or
circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather
conditions do not allow a 305-m (1,000ft) flying altitude, such as during severe
storms or when cloud cover is low,
aircraft may be operated below the 305m (1,000-ft) altitude stipulated above.
However, when aircraft are operated at
altitudes below 305 m (1,000 ft) because
of weather conditions, the operator must
avoid areas of known walrus and polar
bear concentrations and should take
precautions to avoid flying directly over
or within 805 m (0.5 mile) of these
areas.
(iii) Plan all aircraft routes to
minimize any potential conflict with
active or anticipated walrus or polar
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13491
bear hunting activity as determined
through community consultations.
(5) Additional mitigation measures for
offshore seismic surveys. Any offshore
exploration activity expected to include
the production of pulsed underwater
sounds with sound source levels ≥160
dB re 1 μPa will be required to establish
and monitor acoustic exclusion and
disturbance zones and implement
adaptive mitigation measures as follows:
(i) Monitor zones. Establish and
monitor with trained marine mammal
observers an acoustically verified
exclusion zone for walruses
surrounding seismic airgun arrays
where the received level would be ≥ 180
dB re 1 μPa; an acoustically verified
exclusion zone for polar bear
surrounding seismic airgun arrays
where the received level would be ≥ 190
dB re 1 μPa; and an acoustically verified
walrus disturbance zone ahead of and
perpendicular to the seismic vessel
track where the received level would be
≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa.
(ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all
seismic surveys, including airgun
testing, use the following ramp-up
procedures to allow marine mammals to
depart the exclusion zone before seismic
surveying begins:
(A) Visually monitor the exclusion
zone and adjacent waters for the
absence of polar bears and walruses for
at least 30 minutes before initiating
ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or
walruses are detected, you may initiate
ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate
ramp-up procedures at night or when
you cannot visually monitor the
exclusion zone for marine mammals.
(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by
firing a single airgun. The preferred
airgun to begin with should be the
smallest airgun, in terms of energy
output (dB) and volume (in3).
(C) Continue ramp-up by gradually
activating additional airguns over a
period of at least 20 minutes, but no
longer than 40 minutes, until the
desired operating level of the airgun
array is obtained.
(iii) Power down/Shut down.
Immediately power down or shut down
the seismic airgun array and/or other
acoustic sources whenever any walruses
are sighted approaching close to or
within the area delineated by the 180dB re 1 μPa walrus exclusion zone, or
polar bears are sighted approaching
close to or within the area delineated by
the 190-dB re 1 μPa polar bear exclusion
zone. If the power down operation
cannot reduce the received sound
pressure level to 180-dB re 1 μPa
(walrus) or 190-dB re 1 μPa (polar
bears), the operator must immediately
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13492
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
shut down the seismic airgun array and/
or other acoustic sources.
(iv) Emergency shut down. If
observations are made or credible
reports are received that one or more
walruses and/or polar bears are within
the area of the seismic survey and are
in an injured or mortal state, or are
indicating acute distress due to seismic
noise, the seismic airgun array will be
immediately shut down and the Service
contacted. The airgun array will not be
restarted until review and approval has
been given by the Service. The ramp-up
procedures provided in paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed
when restarting.
(v) Adaptive response for walrus
aggregations. Whenever an aggregation
of 12 or more walruses are detected
within an acoustically verified 160-dB
re 1 μPa disturbance zone ahead of or
perpendicular to the seismic vessel
track, the holder of this Authorization
must:
(A) Immediately power down or
shutdown the seismic airgun array and/
or other acoustic sources to ensure
sound pressure levels at the shortest
distance to the aggregation do not
exceed 160-dB re 1 μPa; and
(B) Not proceed with powering up the
seismic airgun array until it can be
established that there are no walrus
aggregations within the 160-dB zone
based upon ship course, direction, and
distance from last sighting. If shutdown
was required, the ramp-up procedures
provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this
section must be followed when
restarting.
(6) Mitigation measures for the
subsistence use of walruses and polar
bears. Holders of Letters of
Authorization must conduct their
activities in a manner that, to the
greatest extent practicable, minimizes
adverse impacts on the availability of
Pacific walruses and polar bears for
subsistence uses.
(i) Community Consultation. Prior to
receipt of a Letter of Authorization,
applicants must consult with potentially
affected communities and appropriate
subsistence user organizations to
discuss potential conflicts with
subsistence walrus and polar bear
hunting caused by the location, timing,
and methods of proposed operations
and support activities (see 18.114(c)(4)
for details). If community concerns
suggest that the proposed activities may
have an adverse impact on the
subsistence uses of these species, the
applicant must address conflict
avoidance issues through a POC as
described below.
(ii) Plan of Cooperation (POC). Where
prescribed, holders of Letters of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Authorization will be required to
develop and implement a Serviceapproved POC. The POC must include:
(A) A description of the procedures by
which the holder of the Letter of
Authorization will work and consult
with potentially affected subsistence
hunters; and
(B) A description of specific measures
that have been or will be taken to avoid
or minimize interference with
subsistence hunting of walruses and
polar bears and to ensure continued
availability of the species for
subsistence use.
(C) The Service will review the POC
to ensure that any potential adverse
effects on the availability of the animals
are minimized. The Service will reject
POCs if they do not provide adequate
safeguards to ensure the least
practicable adverse impact on the
availability of walruses and polar bears
for subsistence use.
(b) Monitoring. Depending on the
location, timing, and nature of proposed
activities, holders of Letters of
Authorization will be required to:
(1) Maintain trained, Serviceapproved, on-site observers to carry out
monitoring programs for polar bears and
walruses necessary for initiating
adaptive mitigation responses.
(i) For offshore activities, Marine
Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be
required on board all operational and
support vessels to alert crew of the
presence of walruses and polar bears
and initiate adaptive mitigation
responses identified in paragraph (a) of
this section, and to carry out specified
monitoring activities identified in the
marine mammal monitoring and
mitigation plan (see paragraph (b)(2) of
this section) necessary to evaluate the
impact of authorized activities on
walruses, polar bears, and the
subsistence use of these subsistence
resources. The MMOs must have
completed a marine mammal observer
training course approved by the Service.
(ii) Polar bear monitors—Polar bear
monitors will be required under the
monitoring plan if polar bears are
known to frequent the area or known
polar bear dens are present in the area.
Monitors will act as an early detection
system in regards to proximate bear
activity to Industry facilities.
(2) Develop and implement a sitespecific, Service approved, marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan to monitor and evaluate the effects
of authorized activities on polar bears,
walruses, and the subsistence use of
these resources. The marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan must
enumerate the number of walruses and
polar bears encountered during
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specified activities, estimate the number
of incidental takes that occurred during
specified exploration activities, and
evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed
mitigation measures.
(3) Cooperate with the Service and
other designated Federal, State, and
local agencies to monitor the impacts of
oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea
on walruses or polar bears. Where
insufficient information exists to
evaluate the potential effects of
proposed activities on walruses, polar
bears, and the subsistence use of these
resources, holders of Letters of
Authorization may be required to
participate in joint monitoring and/or
research efforts to address these
information needs and insure the least
practicable impact to these resources.
Information needs in the Beaufort Sea
include, but are not limited to:
(i) Distribution, abundance, and
habitat use patterns of polar bears, and
to a lesser extent walruses in offshore
environments; and
(ii) Cumulative effects of multiple
simultaneous operations on polar bears
and to a lesser extent walruses.
(c) Reporting requirements. Holders of
Letters of Authorization must report the
results of specified monitoring activities
to the Service’s Alaska Regional director
(see 50 CFR 2.2 for address).
(1) For exploratory and development
activities, holders of a Letter of
Authorization must submit a report to
our Alaska Regional Director (Attn:
Marine Mammals Management Office)
within 90 days after completion of
activities. For production activities,
holders of a Letter of Authorization
must submit a report to our Alaska
Regional Director (Attn: Marine
Mammals Management Office) by
January 15 for the preceding year’s
activities. Reports must include, at a
minimum, the following information:
(i) Dates and times of activity;
(ii) Dates and locations of polar bear
or Pacific walrus activity as related to
the monitoring activity; and
(iii) Results of the monitoring
activities required under subsection (iv)
of this section, including an estimated
level of take.
(iv) Monitoring requirements include,
but are not limited to:
(A) For all activities, all sightings of
polar bears must be recorded.
Information within the sighting report
will include, but is not limited to:
(1) Date, time, and location of
observation;
(2) Number of bears: sex and age;
(3) Observer name and contact
information;
(4) Weather, visibility, and ice
conditions at the time of observation;
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(5) Estimated closest point of
approach for bears from personnel and
facilities;
(6) Industry activity at time of
sighting, possible attractants present;
(7) Bear behavior;
(8) Description of the encounter;
(9) Duration of the encounter; and
(10) Actions taken.
(v) Activities within the coast of the
geographic region may incorporate daily
polar bear watch logs.
(2) In-season monitoring reports for
offshore exploration activities—(i)
Activity progress reports. Operators
must keep the Service informed on the
progress of authorized activities by:
(A) Notifying the Service at least 48
hours prior to the onset of activities;
(B) Providing weekly progress reports
of authorized activities noting any
significant changes in operating state
and or location; and
(C) Notifying the Service within 48
hrs of ending activity.
(ii) Walrus observation reports. The
operator must report, on a weekly basis,
all observations of walruses during any
Industry operation. Information within
the observation report will include, but
is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of each
walrus sighting;
(B) Number of walruses: sex and age;
(C) Observer name and contact
information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice
conditions at the time of observation;
(E) Estimated range at closest
approach;
(F) Industry activity at time of
sighting;
(G) Behavior of animals sighted;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iii) Polar bear observation reports.
The operator must report, within 24
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:26 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
hours, all observations of polar bears
during any Industry operation.
Information within the observation
report will include, but is not limited to:
(A) Date, time, and location of
observation;
(B) Number of bears: sex and age;
(C) Observer name and contact
information;
(D) Weather, visibility, and ice
conditions at the time of observation;
(E) Estimated closest point of
approach for bears from personnel and
facilities;
(F) Industry activity at time of
sighting, possible attractants present;
(G) Bear behavior;
(H) Description of the encounter;
(I) Duration of the encounter; and
(J) Actions taken.
(iv) Notification of incident report.
Reports should include all information
specified under the species observation
report, as well as a full written
description of the encounter and actions
taken by the operator. The operator
must report:
(A) Any incidental lethal take or
injury of a polar bear or walrus
immediately; and
(B) Observations of walruses or polar
bears within prescribed mitigationmonitoring zones to the Service within
24 hours.
(3) After-action monitoring reports.
The results of monitoring efforts
identified in the marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation plan must be
submitted to the Service for review
within 90 days of completing the year’s
activities. Results must include, but are
not limited to the following information:
(i) A summary of monitoring effort
including: total hours, total distances,
and distribution through study period;
(ii) Analysis of factors affecting the
visibility and detectability of polar bears
and walruses by specified monitoring;
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
13493
(iii) Analysis of the distribution,
abundance, and behavior of polar bear
and walrus sightings in relation to date,
location, ice conditions and operational
state; and
(iv) Estimates of take based on density
estimates derived from monitoring and
survey efforts.
§ 18.129 What are the information
collection requirements?
(a) We may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond
to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The Office of Management and
Budget has approved the collection of
information contained in this subpart
and assigned control number 1018–
0070. You must respond to this
information collection request to obtain
a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We
will use the information to:
(1) Evaluate the application and
determine whether or not to issue
specific Letters of Authorization; and
(2) Monitor impacts of activities
conducted under the Letters of
Authorization.
(b) You should direct comments
regarding the burden estimate or any
other aspect of this requirement to the
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, Mail Stop
222 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240.
Date: February 2, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011–5035 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\11MRP2.SGM
11MRP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13454-13493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5035]
[[Page 13453]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 48
March 11, 2011
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 18
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13454]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098; 71490-1351-0000-L5-FY11]
RIN 1018-AX32
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes regulations
that would authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of
small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses during year-round oil
and gas industry (Industry) exploration, development, and production
operations in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska.
Industry operations for the covered period are similar to, and include
all activities covered by the previous 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental
take regulations that were effective from August 2, 2006, through
August 2, 2011. We propose a finding that the total expected takings of
polar bears and Pacific walruses during oil and gas industry
exploration, development, and production activities will have a
negligible impact on these species and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence use
by Alaska Natives. We base this finding on the results of 17 years of
data on the encounters and interactions between polar bears, Pacific
walruses, and Industry; recent studies of potential effects of Industry
on these species; oil spill risk assessments; potential and documented
Industry impacts on these species; and current information regarding
the natural history and status of polar bears and Pacific walruses. We
are proposing that this rule be effective for 5 years from date of
issuance.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 11,
2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the
following methods:
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203; Attention: Beaufort Sea
Incidental Take Regulations; or
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-
FHC-2010-0098.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments Solicited section below for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Office of Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148, or
Internet: craig_perham@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
through the Director of the Service (we) the authority to allow the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in 50 CFR
18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, we
shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding that the
total of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period will have no more
than a negligible impact on these species and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for
taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and (2) we issue
regulations that set forth (a) permissible methods of taking, (b) means
of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and
their habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence
uses, and (c) requirements for monitoring and reporting. If regulations
allowing such incidental taking are issued, we issue Letters of
Authorization (LOA) to conduct activities under the provisions of these
regulations when requested by citizens of the United States.
The term ``take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means ``any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (the MMPA calls this
Level A harassment); ``or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of
behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (the MMPA calls
this Level B harassment).
The terms ``small numbers,'' ``negligible impact,'' and
``unmitigable adverse impact'' are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e.,
regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental to
specified activities) as follows. ``Small numbers'' is defined as ``a
portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a
negligible impact on that species or stock.'' It is necessary to note
that the Service's analysis of ``small numbers'' complies with the
agency's regulatory definition and is an appropriate reflection of
Congress' intent. As was noted during the development of this
definition (48 FR 31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself recognized the
``imprecision of the term small numbers,'' but was unable to offer a
more precise formulation because the concept is not capable of being
expressed in absolute numerical limits.'' See H.R. Report No. 97-228 at
19. Thus, Congress itself focused on the anticipated effects of the
activity on the species and stated that authorization should be
available to persons ``whose taking of marine mammals is infrequent,
unavoidable, or accidental.''
``Negligible impact'' is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.'' ``Unmitigable adverse
impact'' means ``an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.''
Industry conducts activities such as oil and gas exploration,
development, and production in marine mammal habitat that may result in
the taking of marine mammals. Although Industry is under no legal
requirement to obtain incidental take authorization, since 1993,
Industry has requested, and we have issued, a series of regulations for
incidental take authorization for conducting activities in areas of
polar bear and walrus habitat. Since the inception of these incidental
take regulations (ITRs), polar bear/walrus monitoring observations
associated with
[[Page 13455]]
the regulations have recorded over 2,000 polar bear observations
associated with Industry activities. The large majority of reported
encounters have been passive observations of bears moving through the
oil fields. Monitoring of Industry activities indicates that encounters
with walruses are insignificant with only 18 walruses recorded during
the same period.
A detailed history of our past regulations can be found in our most
recent regulation, published on August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). In
summary, these past regulations were published on: November 16, 1993
(58 FR 60402); August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January 28, 1999 (64 FR
4328); February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828);
November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744); and August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926).
Summary of Current Request
In 2009, the Service received a petition to promulgate a renewal of
regulations for nonlethal incidental take of small numbers of walruses
and polar bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of 5 years (2011-
2016). The request was submitted on April 22, 2009, by the Alaska Oil
and Gas Association (AOGA) on behalf of its members and other
participating parties. The petition is available at: (https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm).
AOGA's application indicates that they request regulations that
will be applicable to any company conducting oil and gas exploration,
development, and production activities as described within the request.
This includes members of AOGA and other parties planning to conduct oil
and gas operations in the geographic region. Members of AOGA
represented in the petition include:
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company;
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation;
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.;
Chevron USA, Inc.;
Eni Petroleum;
ExxonMobil Production Company;
Flint Hills Resources, Inc.;
Marathon Oil Company;
Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.;
Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc.;
Petro Star Inc.;
Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc.;
Shell Exploration & Production Company;
Statoil Hydro;
Tesoro Alaska Company; and
XTO Energy, Inc.
Other participating parties include ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
(CPAI), CGG Veritas, Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation (BRPC), and
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) Energy Services. The
activities and geographic region specified in AOGA's request, and
considered in these regulations, are described in the ensuing sections
titled ``Description of Geographic Region'' and ``Description of
Activities.''
Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J in
response to this request, we must evaluate the level of industrial
activities, their associated potential impacts to polar bears and
Pacific walruses, and their effects on the availability of these
species for subsistence use. The information provided by the
petitioners indicates that projected oil and gas activities over this
time frame will encompass onshore and offshore exploration,
development, and production activities. The petitioners have also
specifically requested that these regulations be issued for nonlethal
take. Industry has indicated that, through implementation of the
mitigation measures, it is confident a lethal take will not occur. The
Service is tasked with analyzing the impact that lawful oil and gas
industry activities will have on polar bears and walruses during normal
operating procedures. In addition, the potential for impact by the oil
and gas industry outside normal operating conditions warrant an
analysis of the risk of an oil spill and its potential impact on polar
bears and walruses.
Description of Proposed Regulations
The regulations that we propose to issue include: Permissible
methods of nonlethal taking; measures to ensure the least practicable
adverse impact on the species and the availability of these species for
subsistence uses; and requirements for monitoring and reporting. If
promulgated, these regulations will not authorize, or ``permit,'' the
actual activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development,
and production. Rather, they will authorize the nonlethal incidental,
unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses
associated with those activities based on standards set forth in the
MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
(BOEMRE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) are responsible for permitting activities associated
with oil and gas activities in Federal waters and on Federal lands. The
State of Alaska is responsible for permitting activities on State lands
and in State waters.
If we finalize these nonlethal incidental take regulations, persons
seeking taking authorization for particular projects will apply for an
LOA to cover nonlethal take associated with exploration, development,
or production activities pursuant to the regulations. Each group or
individual conducting an oil and gas industry-related activity within
the area covered by these regulations may request an LOA. A separate
LOA is mandatory for each activity. We must receive applications for
LOAs at least 90 days before the activity is to begin.
Applicants must submit a plan to monitor the effects of authorized
activities on polar bears and walruses. Applicants must include in
their LOA request the time frame of proposed activities, the operating
terms and conditions, a polar bear encounter and interaction plan, and
a marine mammal monitoring plan.
Applicants must also include a Plan of Cooperation (POC) describing
the availability of these species for subsistence use by Alaska Native
communities and how they may be affected by Industry operations. The
purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil and gas activities will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or the stock for subsistence uses. The POC must provide the procedures
on how Industry will work with the affected Native communities,
including a description of the necessary actions that will be taken to:
(1) Avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of polar
bears and Pacific walruses; and (2) ensure continued availability of
the species for subsistence use. The POC is further described in
``Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses of
Marine Mammals.''
If regulations are implemented, we will evaluate each request for
an LOA based on the specific activity and specific location, and may
condition the LOA depending on specific circumstances for that activity
and location. For example, an LOA issued in response to a request to
conduct activities in areas with known, active bear dens or a history
of polar bear denning, may be conditioned to require one or more of the
following: Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery flights to determine
the location of active polar bear dens; avoiding all denning activity
by 1 mile; intensified monitoring in a 1-mile buffer around the den; or
avoiding the area during the denning period. More information on
applying for and receiving an LOA can be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).
Description of Geographic Region
The geographic area covered by the requested incidental take
regulations
[[Page 13456]]
(hereafter referred to as the Beaufort Sea Region) encompasses all
Beaufort Sea waters east of a north-south line through Point Barrow
(71[deg]23'29'' N, -156 [deg]28'30'' W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles
north of Point Barrow, including all Alaska State waters and Outer
Continental Shelf waters, and east of that line to the Canadian border.
The onshore region is the same north/south line at Barrow, 25 miles
inland and east to the Canning River. The Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is not included in these regulations. The geographical extent of
these regulations is similar as in previous regulations (71 FR 43926),
where the offshore boundary is the Beaufort Sea Planning area,
approximately 200 miles offshore.
Description of Activities
Activities covered in these regulations include Industry
exploration, development, and production operations of oil and gas
reserves, as well as environmental monitoring associated with these
activities, on the northern coast of Alaska. Throughout the five years
that the future regulations will be in place, the petitioners expect
similar types of oil and gas activities will occur at similar times of
the year as under the prior regulations. Examples of future Industry
activities include the completion of the Alpine Satellite Development,
development of Point Thomson, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, and areas in the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A). According to the
petitioners, the locations of these operations are anticipated to be
approximately equally divided among the onshore and offshore tracts
presently under lease and to be leased during the period under
consideration.
Additionally, for the purpose of assessing possible impacts we
anticipate, based on information provided by the petitioners, that
these activities will occur equally spaced over time and area for the
upcoming ice-covered and open-water seasons. Due to the large number of
variables affecting Industry activities, prediction of exact dates and
locations of operation for the open-water and ice-covered seasons is
not possible at this time. However, operators must provide specific
dates and locations of proposed activities prior to receiving an LOA.
Industry-Proposed Activities Considered Under Incidental Take
Regulations
Alaska's North Slope encompasses an area of 88,280 square miles and
currently contains 11 oil and gas field units associated with Industry.
These include the Greater Prudhoe Bay, Duck Island, Badami, Northstar,
Kuparuk River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Tuvaq, Nikaitchuq, Milne
Point, and Point Thomson. These units encompass exploration,
development, and production activities. In addition, some of these
fields include associated satellite oilfields: Sag Delta North, Eider,
North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora, Midnight
Sun, Borealis, West Beach, Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm, West
Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, Schrader Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine.
Exploration Activities
As with previous regulations, exploration activities may occur
onshore or offshore and include: Geological surveys; geotechnical site
investigations; reflective seismic exploration; vibrator seismic data
collection; airgun and water gun seismic data collection; explosive
seismic data collection; vertical seismic profiles; sub-sea sediment
sampling; construction and use of drilling structures such as caisson-
retained islands, ice islands, bottom-founded structures [steel
drilling caisson (SDC)], ice pads and ice roads; oil spill prevention,
response, and cleanup; and site restoration and remediation.
Exploration activities could also include the development of staging
facilities. The level of exploration activities is expected to be
similar to the level during the past regulatory periods, although
exploration projects may shift to different locations, particularly the
NPR-A.
The location of new exploration activities within the geographic
region of the rule will, in part, be determined by the following State
and Federal oil and gas lease sales:
State of Alaska Lease Sales
In 1996, the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR), Oil and Gas Division, adopted an ``area wide'' approach to
leasing. Under area-wide leasing, the State offers all available state
acreage not currently under lease within each area annually. The area
of activity in this Petition includes the North Slope and Beaufort Sea
planning areas. Lease sale data are available on the ADNR Web site at:
https://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/index.htm. Industry activities may
occur on state lease sales during the time period of the requested
action. North Slope Area-wide lease sales are held annually in October.
As of August 2008, there are 774 active leases on the North Slope,
encompassing 971,245 hectares (2.4 million acres), and 224 active
leases in the state waters of the Beaufort Sea, encompassing 249,000
hectares (615,296 acres). The sale on October 22, 2008 resulted in the
sale of 60 tracts for a total of 86,765 hectares (214,400 acres). Eight
lease sales have been held to date. As of July 2008, there are 38
active leases in the Beaufort Sea area, encompassing 38,333 hectares
(94,724 acres). The sale on October 22, 2008 resulted in the sale of 32
tracts for a total of 40,145 hectares (99,200 acres).
Northwest and Northeast Planning Areas of NPR-A
The BLM manages over 9 million hectares (23 million acres) in the
NPR-A, including the Northwest (3.5 million hectares, 8.8 million
acres), Northeast (1.8 hectares, 4.6 million acres), and South (3.6
million hectares, 9 million acres) Planning Areas. The area of activity
in this Petition includes the Northwest and Northeast areas.
Oil and gas lease sales were held in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010.
The 2004 lease sale sold 123 tracts totaling 566,560 hectares (1.4
million acres); the 2006 sale sold 81 tracts covering 380,350 hectares
(939,867 acres); the 2008 sale sold 23 tracts covering 106,013 hectares
(261,964 acres). From 2000 to 2008, 25 exploratory wells were drilled
in the Northeast and Northwest planning areas of the NPR-A. Current
operator/ownership information is available on the BLM NPR-A Web site
at https://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra.html.
Exploration activities were conducted on the FEX LP company leases in
the Northwest Planning Area between 2006-2008. Exploration may continue
where new areas have been selected. New project elements included
exploration drilling at nine new ice drill pad locations (in the Uugaq,
Aklaq, Aklaqyaaq, and Amaguq prospects), 99 km (62 mi) of new access
corridor, and 34 new water sources.
In the Northeast Planning Area, CPAI applied for permits to begin a
five-year (2006-2011) winter drilling program at 11 sites (Noatak,
Nugget, Cassin and Spark DD prospects), including 177 km (110 mi) of
new right-of-way corridors and 10 new water supply lakes. CPAI is
planning to continue developing its program in the Northeast Planning
Area throughout the duration of the requested regulations.
Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales
The BOEMRE manages the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region
encompassing 242 million hectares (600 million acres). In February,
2003, Minerals Management Service (MMS) (now known as the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement or BOEMRE) issued
the
[[Page 13457]]
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for three lease sales
planned for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area: Sale 186, 195, and 202.
Sale 186 was held in 2003, resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts
encompassing 73,576 hectares (181,810 acres). Sale 195 was held in
2005, resulting in the leasing of 117 tracts encompassing 245,760
hectares (607,285 acres). Sale 202 was held in 2007, resulting in the
leasing of 90 tracts covering 198,580 hectares (490,700 acres). Leasing
information from BOEMRE is located at https://www.boemre.gov/alaska/lease/lease.htm. The next lease sale, Lease Sale 217, is planned for
2011. BOEMRE has begun preparing the multiple-sale EIS for these areas.
The Draft EIS was released in November 2008 and is located at https://www.BOEMRE.gov/alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm.
While the disposition of the leases is highly speculative at this time,
it is probable that at least some seismic exploration and possibly some
exploratory drilling will take place during the 5-year period of the
regulations.
Exploratory drilling for oil occurs onshore, in inland areas, or in
the offshore environment. Exploratory drilling and associated support
activities and features may include: Transportation to site; setup and
relocation of up to 100-person camps and support camps (lights,
generators, snow removal, water plants, wastewater plants, dining
halls, sleeping quarters, mechanical shops, fuel storage, landing
strips, aircraft support, health and safety facilities, data recording
facilities and communication equipment); building gravel pads; building
gravel islands with sandbag and concrete block protection; ice islands;
ice roads; gravel hauling; gravel mine sites; road building; pipelines;
electrical lines; water lines; road maintenance; buildings and
facilities; operating heavy equipment; digging trenches; burying and
covering pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security operations;
dredging; moving floating drill units; helicopter support; and drill
ships such as the Steel Drilling Caisson (SDC), CANMAR Explorer III,
and the Kulluk.
During the regulatory period, exploration activities are
anticipated to occur in the offshore environment and continue in the
current oil field units, including those projects identified by
Industry below.
Point Thomson
The Point Thomson reservoir is approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of
the Badami field. In January 2009, ADNR issued a conditional interim
decision that allows for the drilling of two wells by 2010 and
commencing production by 2014. Following startup of production from
Point Thomson in 2014, field development is expected to include
additional liquids production and sale of gas. Field development will
require additional wells, field facilities, and pipelines. The timing
and nature of additional facilities and expansions will depend upon
initial field performance and timing of an Alaska gas pipeline to
export gas off the North Slope.
Ataruq (Two Bits)
The Ataruq project is permitted for construction but, not
completely permitted for operation. This Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas
Corporation project is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) northwest of the
Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) Drill Site 2M. The area consists of two
onshore prospects and covers about 2,071 hectares (5,120 acres). It
includes a 6.4-km (4-mi) gravel road and a single gravel pad with
production facilities and up to 20 wells in secondary containment
modules. The processed fluids will be transported to DS 2M via a pipe-
in-a-pipe buried line within the access road. After drilling, the
facility will be normally unmanned.
Shell Offshore Exploration Activities
Shell anticipates conducting an exploration drilling program,
called the Suvulliq Project, on BOEMRE Alaska OCS leases located in the
Beaufort Sea during the arctic drilling seasons of 2011-2016.
Presently, the arctic drilling seasons are generally considered to be
from July through October in the Beaufort Sea. Shell will use a
floating drilling vessel complimented by ice management and oil spill
response (OSR) barges and/or vessels to accomplish exploration and/or
delineation drilling during each arctic drilling season. An open water
program in support of the development of Shell's Beaufort Sea leases
will involve a site clearance and shallow hazards study as well. A
detailed description of an offshore drilling activity of this nature
can be found at: https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, under
``LOA Applications for Public Viewing.''
ION Seismic Activity
ION is planning an open water seismic program in the late open-
water and into the ice-covered season, which will consist of an
estimated 3,000 miles of 2D seismic line acquisition and site clearance
surveys in the eastern Beaufort Sea. The open water seismic program
will consist of two vessels, one active in seismic acquisition and the
second providing logistical support and ice breaking capabilities. An
offshore open water seismic program is proposed to occur between
September through October 2011.
Development Activities
Development activities associated with oil and gas Industry
operations include: Road construction; pipeline construction; waterline
construction; gravel pad construction; camp construction (personnel,
dining, lodging, maintenance, water production, wastewater treatment);
transportation (automobile, airplane, and helicopter); runway
construction; installation of electronic equipment; well drilling;
drill rig transport; personnel support; and demobilization,
restoration, and remediation.
Alpine Satellites Development
CPAI has proposed to develop oil and gas from five satellites. Two
proposed satellites known as CD-3 (CD North during exploration) and CD-
4 (CD South) are in the Colville Delta. The CD-3 drill site is located
north of CD-1 (Alpine facility) and is a roadless development accessed
by a gravel airstrip or ice road in winter. The CD-4 drill site is
connected to the main production pad via a gravel road. Production
start-up of CD-3 and CD-4 drill sites occurred in late summer 2006.
Three other proposed satellites known as CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 (Alpine
West, Lookout, and Spark, respectively, during exploration) are in the
NPR-A. These remaining three drill sites are proposed to be connected
to CD-2 via road and bridge over the Niglilq Channel from CD-5. The
other two drill sites are planned to be connected to CD-5 via road;
however, the permitting for these scenarios has not been completed.
Development of five drill sites is planned by CPAI in the immediate
future in the Alpine development area and could occur within the
regulatory period. Production of CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 could also occur
during the regulatory period.
Liberty
BPXA is currently in the process of developing the Liberty field,
where the use of ultra extended-reach drilling (uERD) technology will
access an offshore reservoir from existing onshore facilities. The
Liberty reservoir is located in federal waters in Foggy Island Bay
about 13 km (8 mi) east of the Endicott Satellite Drilling Island
(SDI). Liberty prospect is located approximately 5.5 miles offshore in
20 ft of water. The development of Liberty was first proposed in 1998
when BPXA submitted a plan to BOEMRE (then
[[Page 13458]]
MMS) for a production facility on an artificial island in Foggy Island
Bay. In 2002, BPXA put the project on hold to review project design and
economics after the completion of BPXA's Northstar project. In August
2005, BPXA moved the project onshore to take advantage of advances in
extended reach drilling. Liberty wells will extend as much as 8 miles
offshore. Drilling of the initial Liberty development well and first
oil production is planned to occur during the 5-year period of the
proposed action.
North Shore Development
Brooks Range Petroleum Company (BRPC) is proposing the North Shore
Development Project to produce oil from several relatively small,
isolated hydrocarbon accumulations on the North Slope. The fields are
close to existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, where production will
concentrate on the Ivishak and Sag River sands prospects. Horizontal
drilling technology and long-reach wells will be used to maximize
production while minimizing surface impacts. BRPC expects to recover
between five and ten million barrels of oil, and future exploration
success could increase the reserves.
Potential Gas Pipeline
Two companies are currently proposing to construct a natural gas
pipeline that would transport natural gas from the North Slope to North
American markets. The two proposed projects are discussed below,
although it is expected that only one pipeline would be constructed.
Only a small portion (40 km [25 mi] inland) of a pipeline would occur
within the specified area of activity covered under this Petition.
Initial stages of the gas pipeline development, such as environmental
studies and route selection, could occur during the 5-year period of
the requested action.
One project is proposed by the Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali), a
company jointly owned by BP Alaska Gas Pipelines LLC and the
ConocoPhillips Denali Company. The Denali natural gas pipeline project
is expected to include a gas treatment plant on the North Slope and
approximately 3,220 km (2,000 mi) of large-diameter natural gas
transmission pipeline beginning on the North Slope and terminating in
the vicinity of the British Columbia-Alberta, Canada border. The Alaska
portion of the project would generally follow the Dalton Highway south
from the North Slope.
The second project is proposed by the TransCanada Corporation. The
Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was passed into law by the State
of Alaska in May 2007. TransCanada Corporation was selected by the
State of Alaska in August 2008 as the exclusive recipient of the AGIA
license. TransCanada Corporation is currently in the planning stages of
developing the Alaska Pipeline Project, which will move natural gas
from Alaska to North American markets. The project is planned to
stretch approximately 2,760 km (1,715 mi) from Prudhoe Bay to the
British Columbia/Alberta border near Boundary Lake.
Nikaitchuq Unit
The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near Spy Island, north of Oliktok
Point and the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest of the Milne Point
Unit. Former operator Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation drilled three
exploratory wells on and immediately adjacent to Spy Island, 4 miles
north of Oliktok Point in the ice-covered season of 2004-2005. The
current operator, Eni, is moving to develop this site as a future
production area. Future drilling will be from a small gravel island
shoreward of the barrier islands. Additional operations will include
approximately 13 miles of underground pipeline connecting the offshore
sites to a mainland landfall and onshore facilities pad near Oliktok
Point.
Production Activities
Existing North Slope production operations extend from the oilfield
units of Alpine in the west to Point Thomson and Badami in the east.
Badami and Alpine are developments without permanent access roads;
access is available to these fields by airstrips, barges, and seasonal
ice roads. Oil pipelines extend from these fields and connect to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). North Slope oilfield developments
include a series of major fields and their associated satellite fields.
In some cases a new oilfield discovery has been developed completely
using existing infrastructure. Thus, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield unit
encompasses the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, West Beach, North
Prudhoe Bay, Point McIntyre, Borealis, Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora,
and Orion reservoirs, while the Kuparuk oilfield development
incorporates the Kuparuk, West Sak, Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, and Meltwater
oilfields.
Production activities include: Personnel transportation
(automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons, cat trains, and
snowmobiles); and unit operations (building operations, oil production,
oil transport, restoration, remediation, and improvement of oil field
operations). Production activities are permanent, year-round
activities, whereas exploration and development activities are usually
temporary and seasonal.
Only production units and facilities operated by BP Exploration
Alaska, Inc. and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. have been covered under
previous incidental take regulations (Greater Prudhoe Bay, Endicott,
Milne Point, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk River, and Alpine,
respectively). Now the Oooguruk field, operated by Pioneer, is
currently producing as well.
Prudhoe Bay Unit
The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is the largest oilfield by production in
North America and ranks among the 20 largest oilfields ever discovered
worldwide. Over 11 billion barrels have been produced from a field
originally estimated to have 25 billion barrels of oil in place. The
Prudhoe Bay field also contains an estimated 26 trillion cubic ft of
recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100 wells are currently in
operation in the greater Prudhoe Bay oilfields, just over 900 of which
are producing oil (others are for gas or water injection).
The total development area in the Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately
2,785 hectares (6,883 acres). The Base Operations Center on the western
side of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can accommodate 476 people, the nearby
Main Construction Camp can accommodate up to 680 people, and the
Prudhoe Bay Operations Center on the eastern side of the field houses
up to 488 people. Additional contract or construction personnel can be
housed at facilities in nearby Deadhorse or in temporary camps placed
on existing gravel pads.
Kuparuk River Unit
The Kuparuk oilfield is the second-largest producing oilfield in
North America. More than 2.6 billion barrels of oil are expected to be
produced from this oilfield. The Greater Kuparuk Area includes the
satellite oilfields of Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and Meltwater.
These satellite fields have been developed using existing facilities.
To date, nearly 900 wells have been drilled in the Greater Kuparuk
Area. The total development area in the Greater Kuparuk Area is
approximately 603 hectares (1,508 acres), including 167 km (104 mi) of
gravel roads, 231 km (144 mi) of pipelines, 6 gravel mine sites, and
over 50 gravel pads.
The Kuparuk Operations Center and Kuparuk Construction Camp are
able to accommodate up to 1,200 people. The Kuparuk Industrial Center
is primarily
[[Page 13459]]
used for personnel overflow during the winter in years with a large
amount of construction.
Greater Point McIntyre
The Greater Point McIntyre Area encompasses the Point McIntyre
field and nearby satellite fields of West Beach, North Prudhoe Bay,
Niakuk, and Western Niakuk. The Point McIntyre area is located 11.3 km
(7 mi) north of Prudhoe Bay. It was discovered in 1988 and came online
in 1993. BPXA produces the Point McIntyre area from two drill site
gravel pads. The field's production peaked in 1996 at 170,000 barrels
per day, whereas in 2006 production averaged 21,000 barrels per day
with just over 100 wells in operation. Cumulative oil production as of
December 31, 2006, was 738 million barrels of oil equivalent.
Milne Point
Located approximately 56 km (35 mi) northwest of Prudhoe Bay, the
Milne Point oilfield was discovered in 1969 and began production in
1985. The field consists of more than 220 wells drilled from 12 gravel
pads. Milne Point produces from three main fields: Kuparuk, Schrader
Bluff, and Sag River. Cumulative oil production as of December 31,
2006, was 248 million barrels of oil equivalent. The total area of
Milne Point and its satellites is 94.4 hectares (236 acres) of tundra,
including 31 km (19 mi) of gravel roads, 64 km (40 mi) of pipelines,
and one gravel mine site. The Milne Point Operations Center has
accommodations for up to 300 people. It is estimated that the Ugnu
reservoir contains roughly 20 billion barrels of heavy oil in place.
BPXA's reservoir scientists and engineers conservatively estimate that
roughly 10 percent of that resource, or 2 billion barrels, could be
recoverable. Currently, cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS)
technology is being tested at Milne South Pad. CHOPS is part of a
multiyear technology testing and research program initiated at Milne
Point in 2007.
Endicott
The Endicott oilfield is located approximately 16 km (10 mi)
northeast of Prudhoe Bay. It is the first continuously producing
offshore field in the U.S. arctic. The Endicott oilfield was developed
from two man-made gravel islands connected to the mainland by a gravel
causeway. The operations center and processing facilities are located
on the 18-hectare (45-acre) Main Production Island. Approximately 80
wells have been drilled to develop the field. Two satellite fields
drilled from Endicott's Main Production Island access oil from the
Ivishak formation: Eider produces about 110 barrels per day, and Sag
Delta North produces about 117 barrels per day. The total area of
Endicott development is 156.8 hectares (392 acres) of land with 25 km
(15 mi) of roads, 47 km (29 mi) of pipelines, and one gravel mine site.
Approximately 100 people are housed at the Endicott Operations Center.
Badami
Production began from the Badami oilfield in 1998, but has not been
continuous. The Badami field is located approximately 56 km (35 mi)
east of Prudhoe Bay and is currently the most easterly oilfield
development on the North Slope. The Badami development area is
approximately 34 hectares (85 acres) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi)
of gravel roads, 56 km (35 mi) of pipeline, one gravel mine site, and
two gravel pads with a total of eight wells. There is no permanent road
connection from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. The pipeline connecting the
Badami oilfield to the common carrier pipeline system at Endicott was
built from an ice road. The cumulative production is five million
barrels of oil equivalent. This field is currently in ``warm storage''
status, i.e., site personnel are minimized and the facility is
maintained at a minimal level. Additionally, it currently is not
producing oil reserves at this time. BPXA recently entered into an
agreement with Savant LLC; under this agreement Savant will drill an
exploration well in the winter of 2009 and potentially add an
additional well in 2010. Depending on the outcome of these drilling
programs, Badami could resume production.
Alpine
Discovered in 1996, the Alpine oilfield began production in
November 2000. Alpine is the westernmost oilfield on the North Slope,
located 50 km (31 mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield and 14 km (9 mi)
northeast of the village of Nuiqsut. Although the Alpine reservoir
covers 50,264 hectares (124,204 acres), it has been developed from 65.9
hectares (162.92 acres) of pads and associated roads. Alpine features a
combined production pad/drill site and three additional drill sites
with an estimated 172 wells. There is no permanent road connecting
Alpine with the Kuparuk oilfield; small aircraft are used to provide
supplies and crew changeovers. Major resupply activities occur in the
winter, using the ice road that is constructed annually between the two
fields. The Alpine base camp can house approximately 540 employees.
Northstar
The Northstar oilfield was discovered in 1983 and developed by BPXA
in 1995. The offshore oilfield is located 6 km (4 mi) northwest of the
Point McIntyre field and 10 km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay in about 39 feet
of water. The 15,360-hectare (38,400-acre) reservoir has now been
developed from a 2-hectare (5-acre) artificial island. Production from
the Northstar reservoir began in late 2001. The 2-hectare (5-acre)
island will eventually contain 19 producing wells, six gas injector
wells, and one solids injection well. A subsea pipeline connects
facilities to the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Access to Northstar is via
helicopter, hovercraft, and boat.
Oooguruk Unit
The Oooguruk Unit is located adjacent to and immediately northwest
of the Kuparuk River Unit in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, near
Thetis Island. Unit production began in 2008. Facilities include an
offshore drill site and onshore production facilities pad. In addition,
a subsea 5.7-mile flowline transports produced fluids from the offshore
drill site to shore, where it transitions to an aboveground flowline
supported on vertical support members for 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to the
onshore facilities for approximately 3.3 hectares (8.2 acres). The
offshore drill site (2.4 hectares, 6 acres) is planned to support 48
wells drilled from the Nuiqsut and Kuparuk reservoirs. The wells are
contained in well bay modules, with capacity for an additional 12
wells, if needed. Pioneer is additionally proposing production
facilities west of KRU drill site 3S on State oil and gas leases. The
contemplated facilities consist of two drill sites near the Colville
River delta mouth, a tie-in pad adjacent to DS-3S, gravel roads, flow
lines, and power lines. Drilling of the initial appraisal well is
planned to start in 2013, with first oil production as early as 2015.
During the time period of the previous ITRs (2006-2011), three
development projects were described as possibly moving into the
production phase. Currently, only Oooguruk is producing. The two other
developments, Nikaitchuq and the Alpine West Development, have not
begun to produce oil to their fullest capacity. Concurrently, there are
two additional developments that could be producing oil during the
regulatory period. They are the Liberty and North Shore developments.
Proposed production activities will increase the total area of the
Industrial
[[Page 13460]]
footprint by the addition of new facilities, such as drill pads,
pipelines, and support facilities, in the geographic region; however,
oil production volume is expected to continue to decrease during this
5-year regulatory period, despite new fields initiating production.
This is due to current producing fields reducing output and new fields
not maintaining the loss of that output. Current monitoring and
mitigation measures, described later, will be kept in place.
Evaluation of the Nature and Level of Proposed Activities
During the period covered by the proposed regulations, we
anticipate the annual level of activity at existing production
facilities, as well as levels of new annual exploration and development
activities, will be similar to that which occurred under the previous
regulations, although exploration and development may shift to
different locations and new production facilities will add to the
overall Industry footprint. Additional onshore and offshore production
facilities are being considered within the timeframe of these
regulations, potentially adding to the total permanent activities in
the area. The progress is similar to prior production schedules, but
there is a potential increase in the accumulation of the industrial
footprint, with an increase mainly in onshore facilities.
Biological Information
Pacific Walrus
The Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), is represented by
a single population of animals inhabiting the shallow continental shelf
waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The distribution of Pacific
walruses varies markedly with seasons. During the late winter breeding
season, walruses are found in areas of the Bering Sea where open leads,
polynyas, or areas of broken pack ice occur. Significant winter
concentrations are normally found in the Gulf of Anadyr, the St.
Lawrence Island Polynya, and in an area south of Nunivak Island. In the
spring and early summer, most of the population follows the retreating
pack ice northward into the Chukchi Sea; however, several thousand
animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering Sea, utilizing
coastal haulouts during the ice-free season. During the summer months,
walruses are widely distributed across the shallow continental shelf
waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant summer concentrations are
normally found in the unconsolidated pack ice west of Point Barrow, and
along the northern coastline of Chukotka in the vicinity of Wrangell
Island. Small herds of walruses occasionally range east of point Barrow
into the Beaufort Sea in late summer. As the ice edge advances
southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration and re-group on
the Bering Sea pack ice.
Population Status
The size of the Pacific walrus population has never been known with
certainty. Based on large sustained harvests in the 18th and 19th
centuries, Fay (1957) speculated that the pre-exploitation population
was represented by a minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that time,
population size is believed to have fluctuated markedly in response to
varying levels of human exploitation. Large-scale commercial harvests
are believed to have reduced the population to 50,000-100,000 animals
in the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 1989). The population appears to have
increased rapidly in size during the 1960s and 1970s in response to
harvest regulations and reductions in hunting pressure (Fay et al.
1989). Between 1975 and 1990, visual aerial surveys were carried out by
the United States and Russia at 5-year intervals, producing population
estimates ranging from 201,039 to 290,000 walruses. In 2006, U.S. and
Russian researchers surveyed walrus groups in the pack ice of the
Bering Sea using thermal imaging systems to detect walruses hauled out
on sea ice and satellite transmitters to account for walruses in the
water. The number of walruses within the surveyed area was estimated at
129,000 with 95 percent confidence limits of 55,000 to 507,000
individuals. Previous aerial survey results are highly variable and not
directly comparable among years because of differences in survey
methods, timing of surveys, segments of the population surveyed, and
incomplete coverage of areas where walrus may have been present.
Because of such issues, existing abundance estimates do not provide a
basis for determining trends in population size.
Changes in walrus population status have also been investigated by
examining changes in biological parameters over time. Based on evidence
of changes in abundance, distributions, condition indices, and life-
history parameters, Fay et al. (1989) and Fay et al. (1997) concluded
that the Pacific walrus population increased greatly in size during the
1960s and 1970s, and postulated that the population was approaching, or
had exceeded, the carrying capacity of its environment by the early
1980s. Harvest increased in the 1980s. Changes in the size,
composition, and productivity of the sampled walrus harvest in the
Bering Strait Region of Alaska over this timeframe are consistent with
this hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). Harvest levels declined
sharply in the early 1990s, and increased reproductive rates and
earlier maturation in females occurred, suggesting that density-
dependent feedback mechanisms had been relaxed and the population had
likely dropped below carrying capacity (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006).
However, it is unknown whether density-dependent changes in life-
history parameters were mediated by changes in population abundance or
changes in the carrying capacity of the environment (Garlich-Miller et
al. 2006).
Habitat
Walruses rely on floating pack ice as a substrate for resting and
giving birth. Walruses generally require ice thicknesses of 50 cm (20
in) or more to support their weight. Although walruses can break
through ice up to 20 cm (8 in) thick, they usually occupy areas with
natural openings and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice
(Fay 1982). Thus, their concentrations in winter tend to be in areas of
divergent ice flow or along the margins of persistent polynyas.
Concentrations in summer tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack
ice, usually within 100 km (30 mi) of the leading edge of the ice pack
(Gilbert 1999). When suitable pack ice is not available, walruses haul
out to rest on land. Isolated sites, such as barrier islands, points,
and headlands, are most frequently occupied. Social factors, learned
behavior, and proximity to their prey base are also thought to
influence the location of haulout sites. Traditional walrus haulout
sites in the eastern Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson, Cape Lisburne,
and Icy Cape. In recent years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site has seen
regular use in late summer. Numerous haulouts also exist along the
northern coastline of Chukotka, and on Wrangell and Herald islands,
which are considered important haul-out areas in September, especially
in years when the pack ice retreats far to the north.
Although capable of diving to deeper depths, walruses are generally
found in shallow waters of 100 m (300 ft) or less, possibly because of
higher productivity of their benthic foods in shallower water. They
feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates although Native
hunters have also reported incidences of walruses preying on seals.
Prey densities are thought to vary across the continental shelf
according to sediment
[[Page 13461]]
type and structure. Preferred feeding areas are typically composed of
sediments of soft, fine sands. The juxtaposition of ice over
appropriate depths for feeding is especially important for females and
their dependent young that are not capable of deep diving or long
exposure in the water. The mobility of the pack ice is thought to help
prevent walruses from overexploiting their prey resource (Ray et al.
2006). Foraging trips may last for several days, during which time they
dive to the bottom nearly continuously. Most foraging dives to the
bottom last between 5 and 10 minutes, with a relatively short (1-2
minute) surface interval. The intensive tilling of the sea floor by
foraging walruses is thought to have significant influence on the
ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas. Foraging activity recycles
large quantities of nutrients from the sea floor back into the water
column, provides food for scavenger organisms, and contributes greatly
to the diversity of the benthic community.
Life History
Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction.
Females reach sexual maturity at 4-9 years of age. Males become fertile
at 5-7 years of age; however, they are usually unable to compete for
mates until they reach full physical maturity at 15-16 years of age.
Breeding occurs between January and March in the pack ice of the Bering
Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or May the following year
during the northward migration from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea.
Calving areas in the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering Strait to
latitude 70[deg]N. (Fay et al. 1984). Calves are capable of entering
the water shortly after birth, but tend to haulout frequently, until
their swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Newborn
calves are tended closely. They accompany their mother from birth and
are usually not weaned for 2 years or more. Cows brood newborns to aid
in their thermoregulation (Fay and Ray 1968), and carry them on their
back or under their flipper while in the water (Gehnrich 1984). Females
with newborns often join together to form large ``nursery herds''
(Burns 1970). Summer distribution of females and young walruses is
closely tied to the movements of the pack ice relative to feeding
areas. Females give birth to one calf every two or more years. This
reproductive rate is much lower than other pinniped species; however,
some walruses live to age 35-40 and remain reproductively active until
relatively late in life.
Walruses are extremely social and gregarious animals. They tend to
travel in groups and haulout onto ice or land in groups. Walruses spend
approximately one-third of their time hauled out onto land or ice.
Hauled-out walruses tend to lie in close physical contact with each
other. Youngsters often lie on top of the adults. The size of the
hauled out groups can range from a few animals up to several thousand
individuals.
Mortality
Polar bears are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of walruses
(Frost et al. 1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005). Predation levels are
thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout sites where large
aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few observations exist
for off-shore environs.
Pacific walruses have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and
Chukotka for thousands of years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus
population by Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since
first contact. Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is
restricted to meet the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples. The
Service, in partnership with the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) and the
Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka,
administered subsistence harvest monitoring programs in Alaska and
Chukotka in 2000-2005. Harvest mortality over this timeframe averaged
5,458 walruses per year. This mortality estimate includes corrections
for under-reported harvest and struck and lost animals.
Intra-specific trauma is also a known source of injury and
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the
water and have been known to result in injuries and mortalities. The
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals
hauled out. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of these herds
are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries.
Distributions and Abundance of Pacific Walruses in the Beaufort Sea
The distribution of Pacific walruses is thought to be influenced
primarily by the extent of the seasonal pack ice. In May and June, most
of the Pacific walrus population migrates through the Bering Strait
into the Chukchi Sea. Walruses tend to migrate into the Chukchi Sea
along lead systems that develop along the northwest coast of Alaska.
Walruses are expected to be closely associated with the southern edge
of the seasonal pack ice during the open water season. By July, large
groups of walruses, up to several thousand animals, can be found along
the edge of the pack ice between Icy Cape and Point Barrow. During
August, the edge of the pack ice generally retreats northward to about
71[deg]N, but in light ice years, the ice edge can retreat beyond
76[deg]N. The sea ice normally reaches its minimum (northern) extent in
September. In years when the sea ice retreats beyond the relatively
shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea, some animals
migrate west towards Chukotka, while others have been observed hauling
out along the shoreline between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. In
recent years, coastal haulouts in Chukotka Russia have seen regular and
persistent use in the fall. Russian biologists attribute the increased
use of these coastal haulouts to diminishing sea ice habitat. A similar
event was recorded along the Alaskan coastline in August-September
2007, 2009, and 2010 when several thousand animals were reported along
the Chukchi Sea coast between Barrow and Cape Lisburne. The pack ice
usually advances rapidly southward in October, and most walruses are
thought to have moved into the Bering Sea by mid to late November.
Although most walruses remain in the Chukchi Sea throughout the
summer months, small numbers of animals occasionally range into the
Beaufort Sea in late summer. A total of 18 walrus sightings have been
reported as a result of Industry monitoring efforts over the past 20
years (Kalxdorff and Bridges 2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Two sightings
occurred in 1996; one involved a single animal observed from a seismic
vessel near Point Barrow, and a second animal was sighted during an
aerial survey approximately 5 miles northwest of Howe Island. In 1997,
another single animal was sighted during an aerial survey approximately
20 miles north of Pingok Island. In 1998, a dead walrus was observed on
Pingok Island being scavenged by polar bears. One walrus was observed
hauled out near the SDC at McCovey in 2002. In 2004, one walrus was
observed 50 m from the Saltwater Treatment Plant, on West Dock. In
addition, walrus have been observed on the armor of Northstar Island
three times since 2001; in 2004, three walrus were observed on the
armor in two separate instances. Between 2005 and 2009 additional
walruses were recorded.
Climate Change
Analyses of long-term environmental data sets indicate that
substantial
[[Page 13462]]
reductions in both the extent and thickness of the arctic sea-ice cover
have occurred over the past 40 years. Record minimum sea ice extent was
recorded in 2002, 2005, and again in 2007; sea ice cover in 2003 and
2004 was also substantially below the 20-year mean. Walruses rely on
suitable sea ice as a substrate for resting between foraging bouts,
calving, molting, isolation from predators, and protection from storm
events. The juxtaposition of sea ice over shallow-shelf habitat
suitable for benthic feeding is important to walruses. Recent trends in
the Chukchi Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice retreat off the
continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting
significant adaptive challenges to walruses in the region. Reasonably
foreseeable impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing sea ice
cover include: Shifts in range and abundance, such as hauling out on
land and potential movements into the Beaufort Sea; increased
vulnerability to predation and disturbance; declines in prey species;
increased mortality rates resulting from storm events; and premature
separation of females and dependent calves. Secondary effects on animal
health and condition resulting from reductions in suitable foraging
habitat may also influence survivorship and productivity. Future
studies investigating walrus distributions, population status and
trends, and habitat use patterns are important for responding to walrus
conservation and management issues associated with environmental and
habitat changes.
Polar Bear
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was listed as threatened, range-
wide, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 15, 2008, due to
loss of sea ice habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 28212). The
Service published a final special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA
for the polar bear on December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76249), which provides
for measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of
polar bears. This means that this special 4(d) rule: (a) In most
instances, adopts the conservation regulatory requirements of the MMPA
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the polar bear as the appropriate
regulatory provisions for the polar bear; (b) provides that incidental,
nonlethal take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the
bear's current range is not prohibited under the ESA; (c) clarifies
that the special rule does not alter the Section 7 consultation
requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies the standard ESA protections
for threatened species when an activity is not covered by an MMPA or
CITES authorization or exemption.
Polar bears occur throughout the arctic. In Alaska, they have been
observed as far south in the eastern Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island
and the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). However, they are most commonly
found within 180 miles of the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas, from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border. Two stocks occur
in Alaska: (1) The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and (2) the Southern
Beaufort Sea stock (SBS). A summary of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks
are described below. A detailed description of the CS and SBS polar
bear stocks can be found in the ``Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar
Bear (Ursus maritimus)'' (https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm).
Management and conservation concerns for the SBS and CS polar bear
populations include: Climate change, which continues to increase both
the expanse and duration of open water in summer and fall; human
activities within the near-shore environment, including oil and gas
activities; atmospheric and oceanic transport of contaminants into the
Arctic; and over-harvest, should polar bear stocks become nutritionally
stressed or decline due to some combination of the afore-mentioned
threats.
Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)
The SBS polar bear population is shared between Canada and Alaska.
Radio-telemetry data, combined with earlier tag returns from harvested
bears, suggest that the SBS region comprised a single population with a
western boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an eastern boundary near
Pearce Point, Northwest Territories, Canada. Early estimates from the
mid 1980s suggested the size of the SBS population was approximately
1,800 polar bears, although uneven sampling was known to compromise the
accuracy of that estimate. A population analysis of the SBS stock was
completed in June 2006 through joint research coordinated between the
United States and Canada. That analysis indicated th